Slashdot Mirror
US Military Plans Space Combat
MacDork writes "Wired news is reporting that the US Air Force has documented its plans to shoot down "commercial spacecraft, neutral countries' launching pads -- even weather satellites" should the need arise. From potential Chinese militarization of space to commercial spy satellites their reasoning seems obvious, but there are just as obvious consequences of such actions. Just glancing at the PDF, I don't see any plans for the aftermath..."
Neither don't I. Just like I doesn't see any plans for editors to ever edit a retarded submission.
The problem with space combat is many fold a) You piss tons of people off. b) You open the opportunity for others to blow up your satellites. c) You have missiles in space. Come on now, I thought that finished up a while ago. d) It's expensive! e) I'd rather the military jam the communication signals from spy satellites than start launching rockets
By international consent, space is demilitarized (at least until the pod people attack us, or whatever). I doubt the US can afford breaking any more treaties.
Space junk will be the least of our worries if we make it a habit of shooting down everyone elses technology from space.
I swear, especially under this new administration, America has taken on the roll of big brother / playground bully to a degree I'm not comfortable with.
Yes we need to be afraid of attack. Yes we need to protect ourselves. No that doesn't mean we have exclusive rights to space.
If we start shooting down China et al's space technology, the next target will be painted on our foreheads, and every other soveriegn country on earth will have their fingers on the trigger.
Lose Weight and Feel Great with Isagenix
Fear will keep the local systems in line, fear of this battle station.
"I don't any plans for the aftermath..."
And I don't any verb.
Everything seemed to be going so nice
'till the end of all beings punched right through the ice
sounds familiar
..
i guess dubya is consistent in some things
vodka, straight up, thank you!
If I get to pilot an X-Wing then sign me up!!
"I don't any plans for the aftermath..."
What is that supposed to mean?
I think it's a good idea, but if they shoot down other countries satillites and such, they are in really just taking space for themselves and not allowing anybody else... Why can they have spy satillites and other countries can?
x86, oh yes, I'm pro.
Just glancing at the PDF, I don't any plans for the aftermath.
Apparently they're already started to blast verbs out of grammar books nationwide. Run for cover!
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
If war ever break in space, we'll definitely nail ourselves down on this planet.
Any belt of space debris would make it difficult to eventually leave orbit.
Personally if I were a leader of a country and the US air force shot down a satellite or any other sort of space launch I would declare full and all out war on the US.
The US should not be able to say what a soverign nation can and can not launch into space and if they attempt to control that I would wholelly support action (be it military or otherwise) against the US.
I agree. Isn't it true other countries cannot take pictures of other countries (like the US), according to the US, but it's fine and dandy for the US to take spy pictures of others?
Do unto others as you would others unto to you (Or something like that)
x86, oh yes, I'm pro.
I personally like the "Fire high-powered laser beams from Earth to redirect objects so they will burn up in earth's atmosphere" option because it means less stuff we have to attach to our spacecraft plus if Aliens invade, we'll at least have something to use against them...
[o]_O
Exactly. All this will really accomplish is to royally piss off every other country and spark a new arms race.
The Commandant to the graduating class of the military academy that Bart and Lisa joined:
The wars of the future will not be fought on the battlefield or at sea. They will be fought in space, or possibly on top of a very tall mountain. In either case, most of the actual fighting will be done by small robots. And as you go forth today remember always your duty is clear: To build and maintain those robots. Thank you.
I don't see any plans.
Hi
I find this notion preposterous - the US has a massive number of satellites for the purposes of espionage, and general usage that they are trying to prevent other countries from doing. Lead by example, not hypocrisy. If I was the leader of a country that had a satellite shot down, or the head of a corporation that had their spacecraft blown up if it was entering US airspace (and by this, I mean under 100km) and had submitted a suitable may-day, then I would be looking for retribution. The same goes for Nuclear Weapons - how come the US seems to be the only country that is allowed to build them? Russian nuclear missles are being destroyed left, right and centre, the British and French are happy with just a few, yet the US happens to have several THOUSAND... Hypocracy is an awful thing.
I'm not anti-US, by the way, I'm just anti-US government. And that doesn't make me a hippie, that makes me British...
Just becuase we have the ability to do it, doesn't mean we'll use it. We have hundreds of nuclear missiles in the ground all across the west, but we don't use them. That doesn't mean we should get a rid of them. It's better to be able to do this kind of stuff and not use it than to need it but not have it. And besides, we've worked on this in the past, it's not like this is a new idea.
"The aftermath" is, rightly, not the purview of the military. The job of the military is to break shit and kill people - "the aftermath" is someone else's domain, reserved for "after" the fighting is all over. Reducing space junk and eliminating enemy satellites are mutually exclusive propositions, so you might as well choose which you want more, because you can't have both.
ABSURDITY, n.: A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion.
...we (US) have to start shit by going on the offensive. If everyone stayed 'cool' and didn't aggravate the already delicate world, we wouldn't even have a need for this. Now we're just going to start a whole new slew of debates, perhaps another cold war, and who knows what else.
While all this will bring innovation in technology, it is ethically irresponsible and I'm surprised that the general public is too stupid to ever protest against these things.
This is just another transfer of Federal tax dollars to Boeing and TRW with no real defense benefit.
Why did the US go to war? Because Iraq was thought to have weapons of mass destruction... What are in those silos? Weapons of mass destruction.
x86, oh yes, I'm pro.
The problem is the United States Armed Forces have a shitload of weapon and weapons delivery systems that are more advanced than a lot of the stuff other countries have.
Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
With Bush giving Kerry a hard time for his "Global Test" remark, it seems clear that the US is taking a more aggressive stance militarily. The cold war is over and there really isn't anyone who can threaten us except with terrorism or nuclear missles (China, India, Pakistan, and certain EU states).
What we're seeing is an administration who's willing to do whatever it takes to advance its goals. Personally, I find that chilling. As Machiavelli said, it is better to be feared than loved, but it is worse to be hated. I worry that our current policies are moving America towards a position where it is universally hated by the rest of the world.
In soviet russia, I for one welcome our new beowulf cluster of galactic space combat regulations.
And if more commercial space programs go into production, it seems like the debris field will grow very rapidly.
Look at the "Made In" label on any product at Walmart or Target or Fry's.
It is also the thing that makes me Canadian.
I do not agree with Bush, and never did. I don't actually like the look of Kerry either...
Why are over half my channels American, when Americans do not have many Canadian Channels...
Also, the world seems to know a lot about Americans, but the Americans don't seem to know an aweful lot about the rest of the world... What gives!?
x86, oh yes, I'm pro.
So... if this is put the other way around, it goes like this: China can decide that they must keep their perceived "space superiority" and exercise their "freedom to attack" in space. China will want to kill the devices which aid the adversary, and then they'll go and blast five US satellites and a shuttle (with crew inside) to pieces in orbit.
I think that would be totally unacceptable.
That's why I also think it would be totally unacceptable for the US to think of doing similar things at all.
Like it says in the article, in a modern world, an orbital war would leave the world deaf and blind. We rely too much on satellites for communication, remote sensing, surveillance, everything. Only fools would play with such a risk.
I do not moderate.
I'd say the Air Force has thousands of plans for all kinds of different contingencies. This is just another needle in the haystack. War in the modern age is based on information more than pure might, and the side with the control of the information will win.
;)
That said, I think that releasing this information to the public may cause tension polically between us and other countries. Everyone already knew it, but you just don't talk about some things. I'm sure there's plans to nuke children in Africa, for instance, but you don't talk about that because it's better for everyone if we don't have to think about such possibilities...
An interesting thing also, is that our society is quite vulnerable to attacks such as these. Imagine the damage high-altitude air burst EMP weapons could do to our digital economy. Everything from money to the title of your home is based on the old ones and zeros now which tend to be a little more fragile than paper and ink..
There are downsides to technology and it's really imperative that everyone tries to get along in this day and age or we risk going back to the turn of the century in a few hours.
What with the new laws in place now, even a few whackos in the upper echelons of the government could give orders and literally turn off the world in a few minutes and all military electronics are typically protected from EMP, whereas your average consumer stuff ISN'T.
And of course there are already contingencies in place if such a thing happens.
Interesting side note, I was reading on one of those crazy whacko conspiracy sites about something called "TACMARS", which are basically tactical markings on signs and stuff that you wouldn't normally notice but could be used by people to organize movements in the absence of sophisiticated computerized mapping and logistics systems. They mentioned something about those bright reflective tags you sometimes see on the backs of road signs, and how you'd use a quadrant system (left corner, right corner, etc.) to make a code which gives someone directions covertly. Interesting ideas, even if it's nutty. Do a search sometime.
Anyway, the point is, we live in a very fragile age, and the people we (Americans) pay to worry about such things do.
Whether they are bad or good of course depends on how you vote next month
Cool! Amazing Toys.
I wish they would spend just 10% of the time and money that spend on making a better war machine into making sure that they don't have to use it.
This is just my perception, but it seems we spend hundreds of billions for solving a problem that could have been avoided with a few billion dollars and a little diplomacy.
For example, with the Iraqi mess going on right now, it seems that we could just have let the Iraqis overthrow Saddam when they tried dozens of times. A lot of times, all it would have required was for the CIA to just not tip him off. Even when he officially became bad (after Kuwait), there were several opportunities to remove the embargo and help the Iraqis to revolt, but we vetoed every time the UN suggested it. I don't want to go too far into this, because then it would be off-topic...
Once a situation arises that requires this type of action, the aftermath isn't quite the most pressing problem. This is for if a hostile government or a hostile group has taken control of launch pads or satellites to install their weaponry or spy systems, and the US is at war or cold war with them. That situation would be so rare and so dangerous that we really shouldn't be worrying about the political and biological aftermath, let alone the resulting space junk -- if we ever have to use such a plan, the damage from the whole war will be so terrible that we probably won't be going back to space for a long while.
Michael Crichton's fictional account The Andromeda Strain mentions plans for nuking non-Soviet-controlled areas (even neutral cities) should they become infected by a biocontaminant from outside earth, because the worldwide threat from such a contaminant would be high, and the chance for global nuclear war is low enough (less than 50%). At that point, the danger of nuclear war is less than the danger of the contaminant surviving and spreading.
And I think most people don't realize that the US has plans for just about everything - they had recently released (under the FOIA) plans for invading Canada. We'll probably never go to war against Canada in at least the next 200 years, but I'm glad we're prepared in case something should go terribly wrong. We probably have to have plans to defeat every country (including a secession of US states) and almost every hostile structure of weapons, etc., if the need ever arises. This is only a small part of that. And I'd guess they also have separate plans for dealing with any severe political aftermath.
Am I the only one who thinks the US Government is just looking for some one to say "you can't be serious!" So they can go "you're right that last one was a joke". Really, I think that as each week passes they're just looking to piss someone else off.
You are not allowed to do this But since Bush thinks the UN is worthless, the rules fly out the window and the shit hits the fan. And people say Iraq didn't have international consequences.
Since when has this country used intellectual elite as a pejorative term?
This is war planning. There are schools for thinking up plans incase something happens. For the vast majority of the plans, even if the conflict comes, they are not used.
I get Air and Space Power Journal and I can tell you that war planning for space has been a staple of the US/NATO and Soviet planning for decades.
It's not unusual for satellites to die for unexplained reasons. Earth orbiters are pretty reliable lately-there have been a whole lot of them and the environment is reasonably well understood, but it's still a harsh place to make stuff work, and there are things that you can't predict that can take out a satellite. And given what a pain it is to recover them, or even send someone to take a look, it would be hard to ever know why your satellite quit working. If it's in a low enough orbit it might even come down pretty quickly after control is lost, not leaving a whole lot of evidence...
It's conceivable that you might notice from a ground telescope that some other satellite has moved into a nearly intersecting orbit, but I suspect that a lot of spy satellites (independent of who owns them) are in similar orbits to each other anyway.
The Hypervelocity Rod Bundles research project. That effort calls for creating a system of metal poles, fired from space, that could strike anywhere on the planet. It's a long-held -- and long-ridiculed -- idea. Keeping the rods from liquefying as they enter the atmosphere is a daunting task, noted Columbia University physics professor Richard Garwin in a 2003 presentation. In order to be considered effective weapons, he said, the "rods would need to be orbited at very low altitudes, and could only deliver one-ninth the destructive energy per gram as a conventional bomb."
Its refreshing to see that people are starting to see this side of the US administration, that the rest of the world have been shouting about for so long.
Trying to become international police without actually giving a shit about any other country really isn't winning the USA any favours.
The sooner the voters realise this and the sooner they vote that mentally retarded warmongering piece of guano out the whitehouse, the better.
Once ze rockets are up
who cares where zey come down?
That's not my department
says Wernher von Braun
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
oh, right. mutually assured destruction made people feel awfully safe
get rid of the nukes and retared solutions such as mutually assured destruction are no longer needed. fancy that
vodka, straight up, thank you!
the next target will be painted on our foreheads
That space is reserved for the mark of the beast.
ATH0 Bitcoin: 1DnwFLXczVZV8kLJbMYoheUrpqHesjxrSi
Have you thought of moving to Florida?
Quote: "I doubt the US can afford breaking any more treaties."
You reckon? Just watch em try...
Military planners need to learn some basics in international security theory. Any attempts by the US or another state to exercise total dominance in space is clearly not going to be acceptable to others (particularly other major players). In essence, a new arms race will emerge to militarize space. If such a race were to occur, the US would likely enjoy some short-lived advantages, but other countries are catching up (American power has been in relative decline for several decades now). American hubris is the greatest weakness.
They probably have plans for an alien invasion, Canadian sneak attack, and another Civil War. It doesn't mean they are likely to be used, only that they are trying to plan for every contingency.
Sheesh, if on 9-10-01 they had made plans in case terrorists hijacked multiple airplanes and ran them into skyscrapers, there would be someone here complaining they were bloodthirsty and paranoid. If you are afraid of war in space, pressure your political leaders to refrain from doing so, don't whack the military because they are preparing for the worst.
Yup. It will be contracted out to Haliburton Space Janitorial Division.
Exactly. It's not like international police, where there's some sort of higher standard to be maintained. It's like some sort of international mafia. Well, I suppose the mafia are pretty international anyway, but you get my point.
Kind of reminds me of the Starfire Optical Range. From what I've read, this was a black-ops facility built in the late 80's to (1) be able to view satelites with high precision from the ground and (2)selectively disable components on these satelites with a ground-based laser. Why shoot down a satelite and suffer the political problems when you can just make it look like it malfunctioned?
If I remember right, this is the project that is responsible for inventing/implementing adaptive optics to adjust for atmospheric distortions. After the cold war ended, they acknowledged the project up and open-sourced the technology so astronomers could benefit from it. If you look around in some signal processing journals (eg, SPIE), you'll find the papers.
``should the need arise''
You mean, if Bush accuses them of having WMD?
Sow more hatred, harvest more pain. Piss off everybody, and gee, there are terrorists attacking you. Who would have thought? Good we spent those billions building our super hyper space defense system rather than improving quality of life!
What's that you say? They're using low-tech weapons that we cannot detect? We must have stronger security checks, fuck civil rights and liberties!
And the maddening thing is, voters actually support all this...
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
Humanity will just put down the guns already...
are we that insercure that we need to blow eachother up becasuse we can't agree with eachother?
even the 'right to bear arms' is insane. why, in any civilized world, should people need weapons?
Now, i know we're not living in our star trek utopian age at this point, but you figure humanity would wake up one day, look at the state of the world and just say 'ok, what the heck are we doing to ourselves?'
putting money into war takes away from advancing humanity. sure, technology gets a boost... and we have hundreds of new ways to incapacitate people... what an achievement.
I say pull the carpet from under the corrupt bastards in charge and actually work towards 'REAL' peace, and not just perpetual war.
This is not the greatest
Look, we have a military to defend ourselves. We use it for other things as well, and that you can critique a particular administration on, but our military in general is around for defense. Well a large part of that is contingency planning, playing what if games so you've got some plans if one actually happens. You do not want something to happen and everyone to go "Hmmmm, we didn't think about this, we're not sure what to do."
War in space is becomming a possibility, thus our military needs to plan for it. Doesn't mean we are going to go randomly shooting at other satalites, just that we'll be ready should the shooting start. We don't want our military planners to stick their heads in the sand and go "We'll just hope it doesn't happen."
It's the same thing as our nuclear contingencies. No sane human wants nuclear war, however that doesn't mean we should just pretend the possibility doesn't exist. Our military has plans as to what to do in the event of one, and the plans are different for different types. Hopefully, they'll be be nothing more than hypothetical documents, but I'd rather we have a plan than just pretend like it can't happen.
This is the same thing. RTFA. The Air Force is NOT saying "let's just start shotting down satalites for fun." They are saying "In the event of a war, where satalites could be used against us, let's have a plan to eliminate them." This is no different than other nations working on ways to jam/counter GPS, and working on their own navigation networks as to not need to rely on the US for it. It's not that they want to fight the US or destroy GPS, but if push came to shove, they want to have some contengiency plans.
Please, RTFA and get a little perspective. Our military plans for just about everything all the time. We even have plans in the event of a war with our allies. It's pretty much unthinkable, but again, better to have a plan. Having a plan doesn't mean using that plan.
I have a plan for what I'd do in the event of a home invasion, fire, etc, etc. Doesn't mean I jsut go around randomly implementing the plans. I just think things through so that if something dangerous happens, I can just follow my plan (which Ithought of while I was calm and rational) rather than run around and panic and try to come up with something (when I'm excited and alarmist).
No double standard at all. A lot of people seem to believe that because we use our military and diplomatic powers to keep other nations from developing advanced weapons of mass destruction, while simultaneously keeping them ourselves, we're somehow being hypocritical. We're not. This isn't a matter of fair trade or some other political or economic issue. This is a matter of a whole lot of people (American and otherwise) finding themselves suddenly dead.
The U.S. military's job is to defend US. That is, to defend the U.S. citizens that pay for it. Period. We never promised the rest of you that we'd defend you, or for that matter that we'd even be nice to you: we have, on more than one occasion but was because doing so was in our best interests. Keep that firmly in mind when you talk about double standards. We have no obligation whatsoever to disarm ourselves, particularly in the post-Soviet era where more and more unfriendly and decidedly erratic nations are acquiring atomic and biological weapons.
The rest of the world seems annoyed that we won't let it have thousands of thermonuclear devices, ICBMs, bioweapons and things of that nature, but you forget one thing: we've been down that road and don't want to go there again. The Soviet Empire collapsed, and left behind a nuclear legacy that will continue to haunt us (all of us) for years to come. No-one really knows where all of Russia's warheads are to this very day. See, we a. don't believe the rest of you when you say you aren't building these things and b. wouldn't trust you with them anyway. And, honestly, if you look at this realistically and get the anti-American sentiment out of it, you don't want Mutual Assured Destruction to be a major component of United States foreign policy again either. If the world ever finds itself in another Cold War it might not get out of it alive. And when you think about it, we really aren't out of the woods yet.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
MAD worked just fine. Come up with a better solution, then play some game theory with it. Just for kicks, assume nuclear weapons are difficult to detect from a distance.
After doing some work, do you see why MAD makes sense?
Remember, the entire Cold War was about the weapons we had, but never used.
If your argument is taken at face value, we should have no problem whatsoever that North Korea and Iran are developing nuclear programs.
Lose Weight and Feel Great with Isagenix
"All your spaces are belonging to us!"
I found this in a link from the "consequences" link in the story.
A shuttle windsield impacted by a paint chip at 3 to 6km/sec
http://www.aero.org/cords/debrisks.html
I'm really going to enjoy November 2'nd, I think. ;)
ABSURDITY, n.: A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion.
US Air Force has documented its plans to shoot down "commercial spacecraft, neutral countries' launching pads -- even weather satellites" should the need arise.
News must be very slow lately... seems like all these places are just stating some obvious stuff in order to fill up their pages or put something with today's date on it.
Of *course* the US Air Force have has these plans for a long time now. Why in the world would this be something just now "found out"? Is this supposed to be some new scuttlebutt just "unearthed" (pardon the pun)? Is there anyone out there who *didn't* think the USAF had these type plans for decades now?
"We have hundreds of nuclear missiles in the ground all across the west, but we don't use them."
They *are* used; as weapons of terror.
The atmosphere of terror created by threat of their use is their actual value.
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
Both Republicans and Democrats, if given the opportunity to target certain assets will do so- even if only by mistake.
What will be the long term consequences, for example if you down a weather sat? Well, for many countries that depend in large part on agriculture for both survival and balance of trade, not having a reliable weather info could be catastrophic. Besides the loss of human life, is it too outlandish to think that a bunch of people that have had their standard of living suddenly diminished could blame the US?
<background>
Clinton had a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan bombed to the ground on suspicion of producing WMDs. It was a mistake they later apologized for.
Consequences? A lot of people without access to cheap anti-malaria drugs and affordable veterinary drugs. In other words, a lot of people die, although not right away or in a "sexy" way for western media. I'm afraid people won't get the point of how dangerous it is to disable key infrastructure like weather sats or pharm plants.
</background>
An other near-term consequence of this will be to piss off some Canadian moderates that are uneasy with the idea of supporting the US on ballistic missile defense (another component of space weaponization).
Information: "I want to be anthropomorphized"
Makes me want to jump on a space ship and emigrate to another planet. One where the US administration/defence has no say/influence whatsoever. But I'm sure they have plans to prevent such exodus anyway. They don't want people out of their control.
When did the US buy space? I must have missed the news...
,9/11 is gonna look very small compared to what might come next.
Then americans wonder why most of the world is so pissed off at you as to be willing to crash a couple of planes in to some towers.
If the U.S government doesn`t start realizing that the world (and space now) is not their personal playground
(The link leads to a page about space junk)
If we're ever at a point where we're shooting down Chinese satellites, I think that "space junk" will be the least of our concerns.
It's the obvious next step, though really it should be the Space Force making the plans, the airforce seem to have entirely missed the fact that there's no air in space.
Deleted
The Air Force has messing with this stuff for quite some time.
In 1959, they launched a missile nicknamed "King Lofus IV" from a B-58 as an early test of satellite intercept using Explorer V as a target...the test was a miserable failure.
They were more successful in 1985, with a successful intercept and kinetic kill of a satellite with an F-15 launched ASAT prototype. The program was terminated in 1988.
Worst...sig...ever!
Oh where, or where did my x-33 go.
Oh wheeeerrreee can it be.
In Haliburton's new space division located in Texas, I'll bet.
you don't want Mutual Assured Destruction to be a major component of United States foreign policy again either. If the world ever finds itself in another Cold War it might not get out of it alive. And when you think about it, we really aren't out of the woods yet.
I'm not interested in being the lapdog of the US either. Bring it on. Let's see if you really have the balls to take on the rest of the world when they collectively tell you to stick your power trip where the sun don't shine and decide to enter an erms race with you.
If Europe would only move closer together instead of continuing to fight each other.
...ever actually RTFA?
"We're concentrating on effects that are reversible," said Lt. Col. Andy Roake, with Air Force Space Command. "You blow up an aircraft or an airfield, these are things that can be repaired or replaced." That's not as true for a space system, Roake noted.
"Plus," he added, "if you blow something up in space, you create lots and lots of bitty pieces that threaten your own assets."
Is there then anyu logic for mr bush to destoy earth?
------- In the end there are no begining
Pencil neck geek.
Planning space combat while we are being whipped in IRAQ? It does not take a lot of effort to plant an explosive device anywhere in public places in the US...now I hear these people planning space combat. We need a Saviour...may be Christ can return soon!
...when the US government can no longer afford to spend 320 billion dollars a year on the military.
Bush doesn't care about the consequences of his actions. Mission Accomplished.
Fry: Stop the cloning. [Smashes up the Clonomat]
Farnsworth: Oh, sure. Smash the *smart* guy's machine.
That's what all idiots do.
Online backup with Mozy, sounds like Ozzie, but more!
no yuo
decide to enter an erms race with you.
Gotta fear them erms... They have big pointy teeth and an 9-cylinder 6.28318L engine with a 4.5 speed tranny.
Aside from all of the obligatory hand-wringing and attacking the USA and the current administration, there is really nothing new here.
The military gets paid to think up stuff. For all of human history, whereever man went, violence followed. So it seems easily predictable that space will become a battlefield.
I would much rather have the Air Force thinking about this stuff now then get blindsided 20 or 40 years into the future. These issues need to be gamed out and risks identified so that the political talking heads can be informed on what the issues are if we were to ever find ourselves in that situation.
The United States government, just like all other governments, spends a lot of money drawing up contingency plans for all sorts of shit. There are likely some that result in using WMDs on our own cities, as well as any / all other possible outcomes under the sun. Drawing up contingency plans is cheap, so we do it a lot. So does everyone else. Big freaking deal.
I guess it's fortunate you are a software engineer instead. Even Saddam wasn't such a hothead. Get at least thousands of people killed because of an unmanned machine? I don't think so.
I would however demand compensation for the cost of a new launch and lost service and work on some kind of cooperation agreement so that I can deny service to agreed upon bad guys rather than just having my stuff shot down.
This incessant need that humanity has to pave over one another of our race, in the dominant ideology, needs to come to a crashing halt (before the crashing really begins to occur over our heads and ultimately comes falling down upon said heads.)
There is obviously a need to set minimum operational standards for societies around the world, the failure of which to meet, inducing global sanctions and a loss of global participation. That said, we need to have room for a diverse and broad expression of human thinking, perspective, and culture. It's inside of that diversity, that the flexibility of our race shows up. Our ability to address change and challenge is a direct reflexion of the breadth of our thinking and our ability to imagine possible solutions.
The society we now live in, in the United States, is becoming dangerously dogmatic, and our arrogance is leading us to choices which will have terrible reprecussions for our children and our children's children. We need to find a better way to interact with people than blasting and bludgeoning them. Even in our greatness, we can be destroyed by our ignorance and hubris. Creating a safe world for all children will take a far site more than turning LEO into an mine field.
Genda
"Do unto others, then run" -- Benny Hill
People's desire to believe they are right is much stronger than their desire to be right.
We're caught in a vicous circle, and there is truly no escape. If we neglect to advance our weapons or put contengency plans in place then we have fallen behind and are in a weak position. If we advance our weapons and put contengency plans into place we force other nations to due the same or be in a weak position themselves.
Until there is one world governmnet, or worldwide peace the arms race and cold wars are inevatible and a fact of life.
What does this administration have to do with it?
Everything.
The message this administration sends to the world is "We'll decide what's best for the world, we'll decide who we do and don't invade, we'll decide whether it's right for you to have nuclear weapons (which we have in unfathonable amounts), we'll decide whether it's right for you to have long range weapons capabilities (again, we have more than anyone), etc etc etc".
We want the entire planet to play with a different set of rules than we play with, and do it with a smile on their faces. And if they don't, they'll be next (once we get out of Iraq in 2037).
The entire Cold War took place because 2 super powers had plans. Neither side acted on them, but they had them, and it turned into one big pissin' match.
The more we try to keep the battlefield uneven in the world, the worse this will become. Space is no exception. And this administration is worse than any other in this regard. Just ask anyone besides Tony Blair.
Lose Weight and Feel Great with Isagenix
This immediately reminded me of Heinlein's Starship Troopers and when I went to look up some info I learned a few things about the author that I did not know back in high school when I was reading all his stuff. I was aware that he had been a WW2 era veteran though as a teenager I didn't fully understand how that affected his generation and therefore his writing.
Liberals call everyone Nazis yet they are the closest thing to it.
We'll probably never go to war against Canada in at least the next 200 years
Especially given what happened last time.
"I don't see any plans for the aftermath..."
You don't need to see any plan for that. You can just look at Iraq and see aftermath for real.
Seriously, you don't look to the military for a plan for aftermath. It's not their job. Unfortunately the administration didn't do its job and have an Iraq aftermath plan, so now the military is getting shot up. That's probably worth considering when talking about escalating the arms race: This administration doesn't know what it's doing. There will be more administrations like that. Do you want Bush III mismanaging a highly instable stituation? Iraq is bad, but at least it is somewhat containable.
Obviously this will lead to a need for personal protection for the individual in the street. Might I suggest an Open Source designed Kevlar umbrella? Already an accepted accessory common to many, it will not only protect your clothing from common rain, but provide limited protection from less common forms of falling detrious. The perfect gift for that hard-to-shop-for individual in your life.
You must be the change you wish to see in the world - Ghandi
HA! *my* forehead slopes sharply back away from my brow!
take THAT, commies!
pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
Work to develop anti-satellite weapons has been underway for decades with Russia and China taking an active role in research and development. Perhaps someone can explain to me why this makes the United States and George W. Bush evil/stupid?
Do you think it's a good idea for two potential enemies to have a capability that could cause catastrophic damage to American interests and the Americans just close their eyes to it?
You want to know who isn't running Firefox 2.x? They spell it "definately" and "rediculous".
You wouldn't be the leader of a country for very long with that approach. You'd end up like Saddam Hussein. I'm willing to bet your role model is North Korea's dictator, who is still in power despite thumbing his nose at the US for quite some time. But he's not declaring "full and all out war". In fact, he's not taking any direct actions against the US.
:3 (keep in mind a girl doesn't need to enslave men to treat them like slaves!)) I consider this to be my inalienable right, and all those women should lack this right because I can get away with it and they can't. Now, if you disagree, what are you going to do? Arguing won't change my mind, no matter what you say. I'll just tell you to think about your breathing. When you focus on it, you must carefull control your breathing, or else you will suffocate. If I'm a sovereign state, no laws have the authority to stop me. The only solution is to use force (military, economic, political, or anything else, but some sort of force) to either make it impossible for me to keep slaves, or create other problems for me so that it won't be worthwhile anymore.
Funny that you should mention what one sovereign state "should" be able to tell another. The whole point of sovereign states is that they answer to no one, and do what they please. If you want the stop a sovereign state, you either have to create internal pressure to change what that state wants, or oppose it with enough force (of any kind) to make sure fooling around isn't worthwhile.
It might seem "unfair" that one country makes the rules for another while violating all of those rules itself. But there is no possible solution to this problem. By definition, there is no authority with the right to order sovereign nations around. So the nations can do whatever they can get away with. The emergence of a benevolent tyrant alleviates the problems this system can cause, but it's only a temporary solution. Any permanent mechanism would need to make the sovereign states accountable to something-which means taking away some of what makes them sovereign. A world government that co-opts some of the powers of the currently sovereign states could do it, but who is this world government accountable to? If you don't like their decisions, too bad. You can't even leave the country to get away from them. That's why we don't have a true world government. There is an actual need to use military force to oppose those whose ideas you strongly disagree with.
For example, I believe that several hundred beautiful women should be my slaves. (to those of you who read my profile, draw your own conclusions
The equation is exactly the same between nations. Except that instead of hot sex, we're talking about hot lead. And lots of explosives also heated. yeah. It sounds like war, death, and nuclear annihilation are among the parent poster's goals, but most of us don't really care for that sort of thing, so we have to use military force to keep people like pigscanfly.ca from gaining enough power to kill everyone.
I agree. From reading the article, it sounds like US is claiming Space to be theirs. One has to wonder, since Space is not 'claimed', if minerals or other materials in space become a sought-after commodity, will the US use their "space superiority" to strong-arm their dominance over those resources (aka. Microsoft)?
Firstly I am not a software engineer (go Faculty of Math!) but more seriously.
Its not so much about the one satellite its about the freedom of a soveirgn nation. I would argue that by the US shooting down a sat launch they have violated that nations soverignty and should expect an appropriate response.
Isn't it true other countries cannot take pictures of other countries (like the US), according to the US, but it's fine and dandy for the US to take spy pictures of others?
/. is full of utter stupidity and ignorance - starting with Taco and working its way down.
Wow, you're truly stupid, as are the moderators who modded you up. A huge proportion of the arial imagery available today came from old Soviet spy satellites. What other stuff have you heard? That there's going to be a draft soon?
Christ,
Hmm.. In many countries like Taiwan you are not supposed to take pictures from a commercial airplane lest you disclose some military secrets. Since in US it's not the case and there are private airplanes, I bet any country has more accurate legally obtained images of US then what US obtained secretly of them. I remember Barbara Striesend had an issue with a private photographer, what of trained spies?
Also I bet hundreds of other countries' sattelites are passing over US and what they are doing is known only to their owners.
But we already have bioweapons, chemical weapons and nukes, at least here in europe, and we're not your closest friends these days, thanks to your total insanity in international relations.
A US/EU war is already near-MAD. My own european country doesn't have nukes or the ability to produce them, as such (but easily enough radioactives to make lots of dirty bombs) - but it does have really nasty engineered plant pathogens capable of destroying most of the world's arable crops.
The USA is the largest threat to europe at the moment... you idiots inflamed the middle east, undoing our carefully planned strategy (ever heard of that, you fucking tacticians?) to defang islam, and you are the only nation capable of taking on europe (unless you count russia, but that's part of europe more than the US is). We WILL retaliate if the US acts directly against us - unlikely at present, but you do seem to be getting just plain madder and madder and more and more corrupt.
Will people PLEASE understand that there's a difference between military planning for a contingency and expecting to USE that plan?
/. reader. But this is completely unwarranted hysteria.
Frankly, it's a valid scenario to consider in the current world climate whether there might be a space-based weapon, that might require a military response. Probably won't happen, but it's not exactly unforseeable that it MIGHT come up. And in the unlikely event it does, we'd be calling for the heads of the joint cheifs if they threw their hands and said "I dunno--we've got no ideas here"
This in no way means that there's a taget list somewhere of satellites the US government has on some kind of satellite hitlist, or that there's a current plan to attack space targets. And it's asinine to suggest otherwise.
Look, I'm no more a fan of the Bush administration and it's military doctrine than the average
And I think most people don't realize that the US has plans for just about everything - they had recently released (under the FOIA) plans for invading Canada. We'll probably never go to war against Canada in at least the next 200 years, but I'm glad we're prepared in case something should go terribly wrong. We probably have to have plans to defeat every country (including a secession of US states) and almost every hostile structure of weapons, etc., if the need ever arises. This is only a small part of that. And I'd guess they also have separate plans for dealing with any severe political aftermath.
Canada and the US have mutual plans to annex their neighbors, by mutual consent of the provinces/states or by force to preempt unilateral actions. Many states have these plans, though they are very rarely used. Democratic states typically adhere to the "do as little as possible so as to offend as few as possible so as to get re-elected", a great pacifist.
I think, though, that the USA and Russia have the most extensive contingency plans I have ever heard of. Indeed, both states have vast relatively autonomous underground operations bordering on secret cities. That link is relatively paranoid, justified or no, but it does illustrate the point. The USA and Russia are prepared for many, many situations, many beyond our consideration.
Oh calm down for fuck's sake. You're as bad as the idiot you're responding to.
The difference between Islamic fundamentalists and Christian fundamentalists is the Islamic ones are content to control their own people. The Christians however feel it their 'duty' to take over the whole world.
If you read the PLO charter, you'd actually see that many Islamic fundamentalists want to control not only their own people, but the entire middle east, and would like nothing more than to wipe out any trace of the Jews from the earth, and anyone associated with them.
Making an "Islam" and "Christian" distinction is hardly enough, beings that what many people consider "Christianity" today is simply another form of legalism, much like Islam; where man decides that it's his job to conquer the world for their own cause, when at least the Bible is pretty clear that God is going to do that himself. When mankind assumes God's role, radical actions typically follow, whether it be blowing up busses on the West Bank, or abortion clinics here at home.
John Ashcroft summed up the biggest difference between Islam and true Christianity nicely when he said "In Islam, people send their sons to die for God, while in Christianity, God sends his son to die for us" (or something to that effect).
Anyway, if the US continues down this path, we will see a lot more terrorism in the years to come. I hope for the innocent among us that the terrorists targets their attacks a little better. No points for guessing the best target.
You miss the entire point of terrorism. They aren't targetting citizens because they're lousy shots. They are targetting them deliberately because they know they'll get the very reaction that they just got out of you. "MY GOD WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE IF WE FIGHT FORCE WITH FORCE!!!". Terrorism is designed to create fear, and out of fear frequently comes weakness.
The whole idea behind space combat seems a little far-fetched (in terms of time), but then again, if we don't do it, someone else will. Remember the huge advantage that Germany had when they took ocean combat to a new plane (U-Boats)? While our dominance in recent years has been a result of our superior air power. Being able to attack from a position that others cannot reach is a tremendous advantage, and we should be at least considering this, as there is little doubt that other nations are as well.
But God demonstrates his love for us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us - (Romans 5:8)
EXACTLY.
...Depite the whining, bitching and moaning otherewise. To entrust your security to the word of potential advesaries is simply assnine. Clinton trust N.Korea and see where that got him. The best way to prevent them from even thinking about shit is to make sure they they see the massive hammer looming over their heads. Such a massive hammer was the only thing that kept the other half of Europe from speaking Russian.
According to some of these people, you'd think we set off nukes every other week in small neighboring countries just to excercise our imperial domain over the rest of the world. I mean come on. In over 50 years of deployment, we've only used nuclear weapons in one campaign and against an enemy that had initiated hostilities and had been at war with for 4 years. Not only that, we had them for over a decade before anybody else, including the Soviet Union, without excercising anything close to Pax Americana. I know we're all enamored with the current mindless propaganda, but the record speaks for itself-- We will develope big fucking sticks and we will make sure you know we have them, but we never use those big fucking sticks unless you absolutely deserve it.
Besides, compared to keeping a fleet of nuclear rockets, it's got to be tons cheaper to simply drop steel 'I' beams from orbit. You can have one inplace in less than an hour. And less permanent environmental damage. I'm not saying there won't be, just minus the long term radiation hazard.
Really now. If the US was going to wack you, you'd have been the 52nd state by now.
You need a FREE iPod Nano
And you are smoking what exactly? Remove the embargo? That is EXACTLY what Saddam wanted! Of course the UN wanted the embargo lifted, they were all taking kickbacks from Saddam. If you were unaware, there are 3 seperate investigations into this right now...
In the year 2004, war was beginning...
Bush: What happen?
Powell: Someone set up us the bill.
Rice: We get phone call!
Powell: Main intercom turn on.
Bush: It's you ! !
Kerry: Good evening, Republicans. All your electoral votes are belong to us.
Bush: What you say ! !
Kerry: You have no chance to be re-elected, make your time. Ha ha ha...
Firstly, I fully agree with those who note that these are so called contingency plans. It would be incompetent for the US military not to have them. Every nation of a suitable size (and above all, budget) has contingency plans. China, Russia, the UK, France, India, Pakistan... They all have plans about what to do when the shit hits the fan.
However, and this is the sticking point, the comment in the article about the consequences of the US building a large anti-satellite and possible space-earth bombarment weaponry is that the mere existence of such weaponry forces potential targeted nations to respond with their own ability to target US satellities, and this is precisely what China is doing.
With the demise of the USSR there was only the USA left in terms of superpowers, and the USA hasn't exactly been humble about using that power of late, and the potential danger that the US would strike at Chinese or European satellites will force those countries to look for ways of defending their property in space.
While I doubt that the EU will ever have enough of a budget or the will to build a defense against the US, I am positively certain that China has both the will and the budget to do so.
China also has one big advantage on its side and that is time. The Chinese are under no pressure to match the USA today, since they will not risk going to war with the USA right now, but they have the time to develop a large arsenal of space weapons and deploy it over time without the huge seesaw problem of US budgets going up and down depending on who is in power.
Most likely I think the Chinese are aiming for a long term matching of US military capability, in the region of 20 to 40 years from now, and the chances are that they will achieve it too, simply because they have, due to an authoritarian system, the ability to focus on long term projects that the US doesn't.
I think that eventually, towards the middle of this century, the Chinese will probably have the role of second superpower that the USSR used to have.
You mean, stand around inside a cage called a free speech zone? Or be out in the street with cops with rifles on the building tops, military helos over head, and sonic cannons and whatnot pointed at you?
That's the state of "protest" today in the US and why most people don't engage in it. Everyone knows it's one incident away from beoming a bad news scene with a lot of people hurt, and better than even odds some undercover "officer" agent provocateurs starting it.
Everything else by the way of protest in the traditional way they can and will ignore, they could care less about letters to the editor or any emails you send them basically. Petitions, bah, ignored. Redress of grievences? Sure, you have the "right" to cough up thousands of dollars to begin talking to some lawyer, then it gets more expensive from there. He's gonna giggle all the way to his mercedes dealer while you sue the government over something. And the vote? See the so called "official national presidential debates"? An infomercial for the NWO corporate party basically, as much diversity and differences of opinion there as at any regular Klan meeting....and for backup they have new & improved voting, courtesy of blackbox diebold..
Funny, for the primaries and the debates for the two for one party they seem to have no problems finding enough podiums for half a dozen guys up on stage, but once down to the wire,for the biggee, all they can find is two podiums. Funny how that works out. Let me see, two dudes, frat bros for some elitist neo nazi satanic frat, both wearing black suits, wives wearing white suits....Yep, a true difference, there's your choice, and you can protest it all you want..but it won't change a dang thing either....
Nope, we are graciously "allowed" the illusion of protest, but americans know what's up, and what's upo is basically "shutup, sit down, do what you are told or else, here, have some trinkets and gadgets and cheap beer and nascar and football, that's it, don't rock the boat too hard..or ELSE!'".
It's not as bad yet as say north korea, but give it some time, it'll get there. That's eventually what these technofeudalists want, that's why red china is their poster boy model nation, BTW, they dig on that scene there. it's efficient. A few folks give the orders, you get to "vote", and they throw you some bones.
If folks don't agree it will get there,as bad as them other places are now, let them try an easy experiment. Next time you are stopped at a "random courtesy checkpoint" roadblock, you know, those kinds that never existed except for the last few years and are now common, where everyone gets stopped and checked for their "paperz, pleezz! and whatnot" by Darth Vader officer friendly with the glock and MP5, just..don't stop! They don't have any probable cause or even reasonable suspicion, they are just stopping you because they can, so go for it, keep driving on your merry way, see what happens, see if it isn't already a lot closer to north korea than you want to contemplate. Of course, you might not make it to even report back, either...in "free" america today.
There's no real protest anymore, people talk about protest, play-act at protest, but the authorites control protest close to 100% now, and they aren't giving up that sort of power. It'sincremental, on a thousand fronts, we read about it all the time here, but it's relentlessly forward for those globalists. That's their plan, you and me and we can "protest" all we want as long as we follow thier rules, their schedule, their methods, manner and location, and remain satisfied with the outcome of any such "protest", which is carved in stone, "they win, you lose."
is more security Shoot the first, and don't care about.
"They have the right to do anything that we are unable to stop them from doing. That, is Catch 22." -- The neurotic bomber of Joseph Heller.
Oh well, what the hell...
It's very simple. I have the highest respect for the military and its ability to push the bleeding edge of technology. They have the ability to preform some of the most evil deeds the world has ever known, yet are relatively docile when compared to what they could do if they wanted to. The role of military is protection. However, the ONE thing that kept me from signing up is the fact that they are controlled by some of the most evil, self centered and self riteous race ever to set foot on Earth... politicians. I can trust the military much more than politicians simply because the chain of command is much better at filtering out idiots than the electoral system.
I pay taxes to the US Government, in part to be spent on creating capabilities to defend the country should the need arise. I would be angry if the military _wasn't_ formulating plans to counter spy sattelites and ballistic missiles.
I know it's popular to stick one's head in the sand and pretend that war cannot and will not exist without agression by the evil evil United States, but that is, unfortunately, untrue. If ever we were to be faced with full-scale war against another major world power, about the first thing on the list would be to knock out their intelligence-gathering and navigational capabilities. If we were unable to do that, more of our people would die -- it's that simple. Every time a story like this comes out, I see people whining about how this tech will make it even more difficult to win any kind of war against the US... Cry me a river. Europeans and Canadians, of all people, should be glad about that.
Perhaps there should be a prize for the first person or company who can find a way of retrieving all that space junk. Some of it seems to be valuable (astronaut's glove, camera) and could probably ear n something if auctioned on E-bay.
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
The UN has deliberately ignored the genocide in Sudan. And the UN ordered its "peacekeepers" in Rwanda to stand aside and do nothing.
The only way you can make a UN diplomat angry is for the NYPD to tow their car.
...that episode where the US military is certain they found saddam building WMD`s in heaven...maybe some high commander was watching this too?
He's stupid if he thinks he will achieve superiority.
But make sure it has ventilation shafts, you can't go wrong with good ventilation...
Well sure, with the new era of preemptive strikes it makes perfect sense. We should blast anything that we think may or may not be tied to terrorism. Hell, I say the next time those Spaceship one bastards lift off we blast them....
They may have weapons of mass destruction or be thinking about getting weapons of mass destruction or know someone who may be thinking about getting weapons of mass destruction. Anyway, even if they don't and aren't the world would obviously be a better place without them.
We wouldn't even have to send more than a thousand American soldiers to there deaths to do it. And even if we did we could just state that the world is a better place without Spaceship one and just not mention the fact that the world is also without all those who gave there lives to destroy this threat to the free corporate world.
Just one tactical nuke and that group of possible terrorist advocates could eradicated from our planet which would either make us safer or not! I say we go for it!
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
Heh, well it may filter out idiots, but Bush managed to make his own way out... They should have kept hold of him, maybe they could have knocked some sense into the fucker...
I have only just started learning German, but I think that the distinction you are looking for does exist in English: "can" (is able) versus "may" (is permitted).
flossie
Write now. Defend liberty
How typically naive, I guess you get your 'news' from Fox. http://www.kucinich.us/dkdu.html
I feel so safe under that hammer of yours.
The problem is not a nuclear war between US, Russia and China. We would duke it out in conventional warfare even though we have nukes, because nobody wants nuclear winter, extinction of human race and world domination by cockroaches.
But what do you do with a Saddam Hussein wannabe who manages to build one nuke and is free to terrorise his own people and neighbors because nobody will dare to take him out?
I guess one solution is for UN to own a small number of nukes in exchange for individual members giving up their own. Then if someone builds a facility to develop nuclear, chemical or biological weapons, they get a warning, two weeks of grace period and then a low-yield nuke to the area if UN inspectors are not overseeing its dismantlement.
I really doubt you couldn't figure out what he was trying to say, even if you are a US'ian.
If oil or other mineral on land are sought-after commodities, will the US use their "air, sea and land superiority" to strong-arm there dominance over those resources? Good question.
flossie
Write now. Defend liberty
Well, with absolute soveringty comes absolute responsibility. Would you rather US invade your country because a private company is unknowingly providing real time photos to terrorists about to commence another Sept 11 style attack? Or would you prefer they just shoot the sattelite and later pay or not pay compensation depending on how responsible you appear to be for the situation?
Otherwise, you can always make an agreement that if your sattelites are being used by terrorists or dictators, you would restrict the access or shut them down alltogether for the duration of the conflict. Let's face it, Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden don't deserve your help, even if the war against them should have been different. If US attacks good guys, its another story.
If I were running for president, on any platform and for any party, I would want a country full of people just like you to believe every bit of fear, uncertainty, and doubt their leaders feed to them.
And for the record, I'm a die hard conservative republican. I'm just very much opposed to George Bush. His policies are anything but conservative, and they are very, very bad for Americans in the long run.
The actions Bush has taken since in office (asside from the 42% of his time he has spent on his ranch or a golf course) have not protected America in any way, instead they have made us a bigger target than we have ever been before.
Al Qeida (you know, the people actually responsible for the 9/11 attack) use to be a group of people. Bush has made them a cause, a rallying point against America. Now Al Qeida will never go away. Iraq is now a breeding ground for terrorists, far, far worse than it was before we invaded it.
Bush isn't fighting terrorism. He's fighting a Bush family holy war. And he's using it as an excuse to turn cart blanche power over to his rich friends, and funnel more wealth than ever before over to his rich cronies. Hardly republican ideals, and hardly conservative.
OK, enough sunlight. Back under your rock.
Lose Weight and Feel Great with Isagenix
Why is it so interesting that these plans exist? The US, and likely any country with half a clue and the military to back it up, have contingency plans for damn near everything you can think of and then some. These kinds of plans rarely go beyond the idea stage but they give those responsible options and direction so they can protect, or at the very least react with a better sense of the situation, instead of react blindly.
Okay, let's say they destroy our civilization and we destroy theirs.
....
Here's my plan
So what do you propose? Make the battlefield even? Give our enemies the weapons to take us on toe to toe?
Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
I'd say this really sparks off a lot of progress.
Imagine this:
- armor plated satelites!
- plasma shields!
When we get these, it will be a small step in protecting our satelites, a big step towards the future of Star Trek!
Online backup with Mozy, sounds like Ozzie, but more!
Depends how you define 'major'.
Maybe if I lived in a third world country I'd say 'lots' (because I'd likely have lost family members to war).
If I lived in suburban USA I'd probably say zero (because the only war I'd see is on TV and it happens somewhere else).
However, you miss the point of the nukes. Its not about fighting 'major wars'; its about keeping *people* under control by terrifying them with the prospect of nuclear war.
The so-called cold war was, in effect if not in intent, a collaboration between the USA and the USSR.
Both parties maintained a state of M.A.D. and thereby held their populations (and those of other nations) in fear for their lives.
This is the aim of the nukes; not the blast damage they could inflict but the psychological effect their existance has.
This is why their proliferation is so frowned upon by the powers that already have them; because it would dilute their usefulness as weapons of pure terror.
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
Isn't it true other countries cannot take pictures of other countries (like the US), according to the US, but it's fine and dandy for the US to take spy pictures of others?
Durring the Cold War, the USSR used to have a number of satelites over the US for this exact purpose.
I wouldn't be supprised if China had them up there now as well. Assuming of course that they don't want to just get the imagry from the hundreds of open source channels that exist on the open market.
As far as I know, the US hasn't shot any of them down yet.
-- No matter how great your triumphs or how tragic your defeats, approximately one billion Chinese couldn't care less.
I just mentioned this to a friend and we've begun a spirited debate about how this will actually play out.
My friend thinks this will all fizzle out eventually because it happened once before. He points out the last attempt at weaponizing space and what a fiasco that turned out to be. He is refering the SDI as one facet of the cold war against the soviet union. In retrospect, we can safely say in relief even though SDI was a failure (and it *was* a failure for the US), it bankrupt the soviet union who tried to keep up. This helped lead to their break up along with their east european satellite states.
But I argue that times are different. Technology has grown since the 80s when SDI was concieved. I'm not as well informed technologically, but I'm willing to bet that even with the failure of the US to practically implement a missile defense system, the resources to establish space-base warfare is orders of magnitude more viable than it was during SDI's haydays. More important than the technical feasibility, the opponent is different. Unlike the soviet union, China is no longer running on the command economy model. Not only is China's capitalist economy growing explosively, it *still* has vast untaped economic potential. To try and bankrupt such a country as we did to the soviet union would likely be just as self-destructive to the US as it would be for China. Left to the hawks among politicians and government leaders, this may bring us closer to mass destruction than we ever faced during the cold war.
Stay sentient. Don't drink bad milk.
I agree. There is no knowing what those hypos will do when you let them run the country.
Here here....
i thought this was a community of smart people... what you say is common sense, but unfortunately you are the first to say it while all these supposed critical thinkers jump on the 'america is bad no matter what' bandwagon...
if china started shooting down our weather satellites the same assholes who are complaining about our military thinking about what if's would be 'outraged' that no government entity was prepared....
I use to live by that motto
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you ", but after being screwed to many times by living that way my new motto is
" do it to them before they do it to you "
Personally, I like the idea of having a shield that would keep us safe from incoming missiles. However, that statement makes the assumption that the system works. I believe that with enough research and development it could.
There is however a flaw. If I have a system that can knock down 10 missiles that is an incentive for my enemy to produce 11 + missiles. So if we get ourselves into another cold war these systems could result in the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
It might protect us from a terrorist organization launching a missile in the unlikely event that they could get one. The real threat, however, is that a terrorist group might get the materials they need to construct a small nuclear devise and then sneak it into one of our poorly guarded sea ports. They could place it in a cargo ship heading to whichever major port city they wanted to destroy.
So we've got to make some tough decisions. Where would our money better spent?
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
so are you suggesting we all sit idle and not have plans so as to set a good example??
First off, I am not a hawk, and I think that warfare should only be used as a last resort. However, I am not some sort of peacnik idealist that thinks love solves every problem. The unfortunate truth is there are some people that need to be made dead to make the world a better place.
I think it's great that the military is writing documents like this. Sure, there is a treaty in place to keep space de-militarized. But, I pay taxes to have the military keep me safe. It they aren't trying to think of ways to keep me safe from every concieveable eventuality, I'd be pretty annoyed. The only thing I find suprising is that this paper wasn't dated 1957. I'm sure as soon as NASA figured out that we can shoot monkeys in space, the air force was working on ways to keep us safe from Russian space monkeys.
Just because people are thinking about solutions to potential problems doesn't mean we are planning on conquering space in the name of Emperor Dubyah. This article strikes me as a bit reactionist and alarming. To the thinkers in the military who spent time to start working out solutions to potential problems before they are occuring: Good work guys, thanks.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
As one other poster put it you prevent most hostile nations from attacking by doing this 1 fund some sort of weapons study 2 leak some sort of info about said study 3 have your hostiles core dump over said study/weapon 4 PROFIT!! yes my friends 3. is FUD pure and simple!
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
It's called PLANNING. The Pentagon plans for as many contingencies as they can come up with, no matter how far fetched or unlikely that they may be. It has nothing in particular to do with this administration, the military routinely generates these kinds of scenarios and corresponding plans.
If you don't think other countries have similar contingency plans for all kinds of eventualities, you're deluded. There's nothing to see here.
I'm not anti-US, by the way, I'm just anti-US government. And that doesn't make me a hippie, that makes me British...
Really, then why arent you anti-US government?
Your country has invaded afghanistan an bombed Yugoslavia and Iraq, both with bullcrap excuses and both illegal. Every illegal act in the past decade, teh brits were at teh forefront and you cant even play the blame game, you had that poodle kiss two american presidents asses.
Where are the british heroes?
Its easy to criticize from across the ocean and behind a keyboard.
How about you do taht about your own bastards in power? Blood on brits hands is just as bad as the US....you folks just got a head start on that side of the atlantic by a few centuries.
Maybe we should also blame Britain for spawning the fundamentalists who first crossed the ocean.
Me, I am Cannabian. I live in a banana republic to the north. We dont own any industry, we dont own our natural resources (read the Free Trade), were like that big outlet mall you see in the burbs.
We live in a perpetual stalemate due to the fact that one opposition party main goal is to separate from the rest of the country (were as hypocrites as yanks, we push other countries to break up but somehow the wholeness is unbreakable. Bull. %50 plus one is what we call democracy) and the other is composed of western yahoos who cant wait to run for the republicans.
This country has been sold of part and parcel to the US the past 2 decades and having studied/worked in eastern europe, I can tell you that the democratic process taking place there is the same that we had here.
Our country is a sham with basically two sources of info. you can guess how much freedom of press we have when the owner of one multimedia empire gives open directives to his papers like "You will write nothing negative about Israel or the Prime Minister of the country. U see we dont bother anymore with making it seem like we have press freedom, our overlords tell us straight forward which news they censor. (no need for proxies an google caches)
I could bitch about the US but we have enough problems here to deal with. I also know that the difference between the republicrats is cosmetic. same results, same mayhem (except Clinton supported Osama, Bush at least makes it sound good) but people need a bogeyman and Bush fits the profile.
And no, Im not a hippy but I know that the war on drugs (marijuana really) was at its peak during the Clinton years when the US arrested 735,000 tokers (88% for possesion), yet tokers always tell me how evil Bush is to potheads because Cheech was jailed.
So go and bitch and feel good about yourself but until you start dissing your own idiot in chief, youre nothing but a poseur.
lyle
Yes. Well John Ashcroft is a bit of an arsewipe. I wouldn't be quoting him and expecting to win the argument. As for the content of the quote itself: fucking bullshit! All those American youth that are dying in Iraq each day
I can see some value in their goals. Keep in mind what the Jews have done to the Palestinians, and the fact that the PLO is a Palestinian organisation, and you begin to realise the forces at work here. I'm not saying I'd line them up and exterminate them, but I wouldn't judge the Palestinians too harshly for wanting to. The Jews have brought that one down on themselves.
Says who? The Pentagon and the World Trade Centre buildings were very good targets, and were hit with precision accuracy. Compare these attacks to the 'shock and awe' campaign in Iraq that killed tens of thousands . And consider the very fucking NAME of the 'shock and awe' campaign, and then tell me that what the US is doing isn't terrorism. In contrast to this, the September 11 attacks were extremely well targeted, and had minimal casualties ( I SAID IN COMPARISON ).
Now once more for the slow among us: I don't support either of these acts. I'm just pointing out the hypocracy in the US's stance. The Islamic terrorists choose their targets well and minimise casualties. As I hinted in my previous post, if I were them, I'd target the PNAC offices when their next meeting in on, and leave the so-called 'innocents' alone. They would get MUCH more support world-wide if they did this. But they don't. They are somewhere inbetween this and what the US does. The US employs terrorism far more than any other country or organisation - and they do it officially, and even call it things like 'shock and awe'.
I don't think I'm missing the point of terrorism. I think you're demonising the other side and pretending your side doesn't engage in terrorism itself. It most certainly does.
why blow up what you can hack?
guns kill people like spoons make Rosie O'Donnell fat.
I know it's silly to expect reply from AC, but which enemies are you referring to? Sept 11 terrorists? Bin Laden? Saddam Hussein? Palenstenian suicide bombers? Do you think any of those have achived better life for their people rather than complete lack of sympathy from the world for their cause. If Palestinians had a leader like Martin Luther King, now I would be symphasise with them and perhaps donate money to support their rights. As it is, I completely understand why Israel would want to build fences for this kind of people.
True, we've had a number of wars that killed a hundred thousand or more people (eg, particularly large ones include the final part of the Chinese civil war, the Korean war, Iran-Iraq war, and the current war in the Congo). But we haven't had wars since the Second World War that have killed tens of millions of people. That's what I'd consider a major war.
However, you miss the point of the nukes. Its not about fighting 'major wars'; its about keeping *people* under control by terrifying them with the prospect of nuclear war.
No, I don't think anyone yet in this thread has missed the point of these weapons.
Both parties maintained a state of M.A.D. and thereby held their populations (and those of other nations) in fear for their lives.
I get the impression you are saying that the US and Russia have nukes so that keeps their citizens in line and pacified with fear? Doesn't seem to work that well since the past few decades have seen considerable political turnover in the US and Russia.
This is why their proliferation is so frowned upon by the powers that already have them; because it would dilute their usefulness as weapons of pure terror.
Good point, but you miss that the more parties that have nukes, the more likely they are to get used. Ie, they decline somewhat in value as terror weapons, but their value as weapons of destruction remains unchanged.
Do yourself a favor and stop watching that michael moore bullshit. You also need to start analyzing the situation in the world a bit more, to be so naive and to think that we are safer not interfering in the world is complete bullshit. And your a Die hard conservative? How do I know that? Just because you said so? I dont think so asstwat, you want to know something, im the leader China. And ill prove it to you to! how? because I said so on the internet!!
nt
Really now. If the US was going to wack you, you'd have been the 52nd state by now.
So who's this new 51st state? Iraq? Now can you understand why others are nervous about US military plans?
The only winning move, is not to play.
We are preparing to shoot you down.
We have nothing against you, it's just that our AirForce has determined that any spacecraft with Russians in it must be a threat.
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
First of all, China is the least of our threats. They know damn well that the principals of MAD are still in effect between them and us.
Second, it probably would have been more accurate to use the phrase "anyone but Bush" instead of "democrat". As far as this election is concerned, most Kerry voters won't vote for him because they believe in him, they just believe Bush less.
Third, for the EMP of a nuke to really do strategic military damage, the thermal and sonic blasts will destroy anything that the EMP would have knocked out anyway.
Fourth, terrorists don't have the means to form any sort of "star wars" initiatives. I'm not sure why you brought terrorists up anyway, they have nothing to do with the militirization of space.
Fifth, these weapons are not to protect us from a current threat, but a *possible* future threat. No country is going to have the balls to throw a nuke at us as long as we have this massive stockpile. Unfortunately, this program can not defend from terrorists.
Sixth, thank you for standing up for Bush. It's kind people like yourself who stood up to protect the LD kids from the jocks in high school. It's not his fault God made him special, and I'm glad that some people like yourself realize that and do the right thing. Stand your ground and ensure that the one thing the right is remembered for is sticking to the topics that matter and arguing the facts.
That wouldn't be the best idea. But you must admit that fear is the best motivation around. During the cold war our mutual fear for each other kept us both in check. Our fear of agnostics keep politicians in office that whore their religion every election year (as if it were an accurate sign of morality). Our fear of terrorists led the public blindly into Iraq. The grandparent post was accurate in describing how, without fear, we have no problem spreading fear around the world to all other countries, regardless of them being friend or foe. There is a fine line between preemtive action and imperialism.
- First US atomic bomb detonation: 12 July 1945 (deliverable)
- First Soviet atomic bomb detonation: 29 August 1949 (deliverable)
Or H-bombs instead:- First US hydrogen bomb detonation: 1 November 1952 (stationary)
- First Soviet hydrogen bomb detonation: 12 August 1953 (deliverable, first use of fusion in thermonuclear device), 22 November 1955 (deliverable, first "real" H-bomb)
(Sources: Wikipedia; Soviet nuclear weapons program)Of course. Tell that the guys who lived near the Nevada desert, they must be terrible wrongdoers indeed. (Then, on the other hand, every American who knows where Semipalatinsk is will comment on how evil the Soviets were to expose their own population to radiation at all.) You should probably try to get out of puberty and get a more balanced world view, where politics isn't explained in terms of "big fucking sticks". I can't help it, you remind me of the bone scene in 2001.
As a state gets corrupt, its laws multiply; the most corrupt states have the most numerous laws. (Tacitus, Annales 3:27)
But the Russians and Chineese are good people because they're actively pursuing this? It's a fucking plan, not hardware. You're a classic example of a stupid leftist cunt.
You stupid cunt, the Chinese already have the plans and flegling capability.
Ok, let me get you on this one.....Bush spends 42% of his time on the ranch or golf course? How about this...the President probably puts alot more hours then you and even when he's on the golf course he's working. Sometimes he is woken up in the middle of the night. Sometimes he's told while reading to some kids that 2 airliners crashed into the world trade center. Sometimes when he'd like to take a run on the white house lawn he has to have 4-5 secret service guards with him. He probably can't even take a piss with out a Secret Service agent standing either in the room with him or right outside. So who the hell cares if he decides to go take the afternoon and go shoot 18 holes? You don't think Kerry would do the same??
Bush had nothing to do with Al Qaida coming to power. Osama and his lot was pretty much created by countries who only taught their kids the Quran and some very basic skills and nothing else. In Saudi Arabia, the Sudan and other muslim countries, there's alot of young muslims with no hope thanks to their government's way of bringing them up. Sure, they may go work in the oil fields for pennies a day and the sheiks and governments get all of the profits. Many of these countries do way more to protect the elite then people accuse the US of doing.
Read the 9/11 Commission report and it will open your eyes. 9/11, the bombing of our Marine Barracks in Beruit and the Cole all happened under democratic and republican administrations and you can't blame any of that on Bush he's only been in office for about 4 years.
Bush has done more to NOT make us a target then to make us a target. The actions he has undertaken have done more to prevent another 9/11 then to create another one. I ain't saying the war on terror is over. Far from it. But thanks to Bush, he has Al Qaida on the run and we have captured Saddam Huessien who, besides the no WMD's found...yet...deserved to be taken out.
Al Qaida was a cause before Bush even took office. Osama issued his fatwa when President Clinton was trying to get out of his problem with Monica and it probably did not even get a word on CNN. Osama and other extremist Muslims already had a following before 9/11 and before Bush took office. Osama and his followers hate us because they just hate us. We are the infidels in this world and he wants all of the world to be muslim. Part of his hatred has to do with our presence in Saudi Arabia (even though we were defending HIM!) during Gulf War I. The other part is just because 90 percent of us are Christian or something other then muslim. Blaming Bush for any of this is just like blaming him for the internet bubble. I can point to what he has done after 9/11. He has freed Afghanistan from Taliban rule. He has caused the capture of many terrorists close to Osama. He has captured another dictator, Saddam Hussein. Sure, he has not got Osama....yet....but how are we to know? To me, if we had killed Osama, why would we let anyone know? Osama may already be dead but we would not announce it right away because doing so would be worse then him living. Osama wants to be a martyr for his religion and by us letting the whole world know, it would achieve what he wants.
In any case, Bush did not really want to do some of the things he did....he did them because we asked for something to be done. The Patriot Act, while not really accomplishing much, it has pacified some people.....even if they don't fully consider it's implications.
It is you who is under that rock....read the 9/11 report. It's very enlightening.
Gorkman
I can see some value in their goals. Keep in mind what the Jews have done to the Palestinians, and the fact that the PLO is a Palestinian organisation, and you begin to realise the forces at work here. I'm not saying I'd line them up and exterminate them, but I wouldn't judge the Palestinians too harshly for wanting to. The Jews have brought that one down on themselves.
But you see, their goals are to "line them up and exterminate them" as you mentioned. Read the charter, and note the comments regarding the translation on the page that I posted. And FYI, it is the United Nations that declared Israel to be a sovereign nation, not the Jews.
Says who? The Pentagon and the World Trade Centre buildings were very good targets, and were hit with precision accuracy.
9/11 could be considered somewhat of an exception, from their point of view, though they are not even remotely consistent in this way. It is believed that the Pentagon was actually a secondary target (the first being the White House), but I'm sure you're aware of that. You should be proud.
Compare these attacks to the 'shock and awe' campaign in Iraq that killed tens of thousands .
That is a ludicrous figure, even amongst your left-winged comrades, who generally don't push a figure much greater than 10,000, which is still a very inaccurate figure. In fact, the U.S. Military went to almost ridiculous lengths to ensure that no one died who didn't want to. They even dropped pamphlets near prospective targets, warning the people around them that they were going to be attacked. By comparison, in WWII, we (and the rest of the allies) absolutely desimated entire cities with no warning. Though I don't have the figures before me, I would wager that the civilian body count in Iraq and Afghanistan put together pales in comparison to what worldwide terrorism has racked up in the last 50 years.
The Islamic terrorists choose their targets well and minimise casualties.
Yeah, they slam airliners full of people in to buildings in downtown Manhattan, killing thousands in a SINGLE ATTACK, while we're so clumsy as to warn people that we are going to blow up the SAM next door with LGBs. Just who's side are you on?
As I hinted in my previous post, if I were them, I'd target the PNAC offices when their next meeting in on, and leave the so-called 'innocents' alone.
But you're not them (despite the fact that you sound more and more like you'd like to be), and they aren't going to take your advice.
The US employs terrorism far more than any other country or organisation
Go spend some time in the Philippines, or Rowanda, and let me know if you still feel the same way. I think you need a change of perspective.
But God demonstrates his love for us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us - (Romans 5:8)
Or they'll get a warning, a resolution, some grumbling, another warning, another resolution, some grumbling ...
A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
Their main use is DETERRENT. So that (mainly)Russia or whoever else launches missles with nukes at the USA will get the same thing launched back at them.
"The atmosphere of terror created by threat of their use is their actual value."
That a good reason NOT to start a war to begin with, now isn't it?
Gore never said he "invented" the internet. why don't you turn off Rush Limbaugh and shoot yourself in the head? that would do us all a big favor. thanks.
No, he's stupid if he doesn't try.
Can you think of any good reason why it wouldn't?
I disagree that they are weapons of terror.
I would call it deterence. If given the choice of nuclear war or sitting down at a table, you bet that I'd sit down and talk. However, I am not terrorized by the thought of nuclear warfare. If one was used in the U.S. and I wasn't in the blast and fallout radius (which means I would be dead or dying), the primary emotion I would have wouldn't be fear, but absolute rage. I'm by no means a militant, but that is definitly one of the things that would push me to sign up for the armed services.
I agree, money is wasted in U.S. defense spending. In fact, I don't think anyone disagrees with that - though some (not me) would argue not enough is spent. I also agree, money should go to avoiding problems. In a round about way, strike force planning may help achieve that.
The whole concept of planning is that you have identified possibilities so that you can avoid them and *maybe* even pick your poison. You can see that solution A may not work (i.e. STAR WARS) and that solution B maybe your only out. Sometimes it takes billions for leadership to come to a common sense conclusion. That is democracy.
Ideally, this planning is cheaper (in the longterm) than taking things on ad hoc, though that may not be how things turn out. In implementation, it can actually be more expensive. In theory, it seems reasonable.
About diplomacy - it is usually applied as a fix. Good diplomatic relations are a working project, but often diplomatic solutions are compromises. Partly because U.S. Presidents have their way on a lot of foreign policy. The U.S. is not about to compromise on defense. And few politicians are going to fund a compromise with any foreign power on defense. It's a political quagmire and will haunt one's career till death. On the other hand, a lot of people will get rich on trumpeting military hardware and advanced defense systems and some will even get elected. Who doesn't want the mere ability to tell the world what to do? No state can resist that.
Back to planning...
Successful planning is just as much about avoiding conflict/problems as succeeding in your goals. You have to plan to avoid conflict, especially when you are in a position of power.
It would be nice if the U.S. could simply say their goals are to avoid conflict and problems, but that is too simplistic for a superpower. There are issues the U.S. will hold a singular position on at some time in the future. This eventual (or perpetual) conflict may be a problem with their goals or how they achieve them or both. That's a few dozen flame threads right there...
"For example, with the Iraqi mess going on right now, it seems that we could just have let the Iraqis overthrow Saddam when they tried dozens of times."
That would have been a lot easier in a lot of ways for the global economy and the U.S., no question. Better? You have the winning argument as things stand right now (maybe). But the scenario(s) you suggest are not the same as the current one (obviously) and neither do they necessarily have the same results (undetermined). Insurgency doesn't always do what one thinks it will. I am not justifying the Iraq war, btw.
True, we've had a number of wars that killed a hundred thousand or more people (eg, particularly large ones include the final part of the Chinese civil war, the Korean war, Iran-Iraq war, and the current war in the Congo). But we haven't had wars since the Second World War that have killed tens of millions of people. That's what I'd consider a major war.
There have been about 25 million people killed in armed conflicts since the second world war. About 90% of those who died were civilians, up from 50% in WW2 and 10% in WW1. Many of those wars have also spilled into civil conflict, lawlessness and economic failures/famines which have resulted in even more deaths.
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
No. You have a military primarily because it's a convenient, if not terribly efficient, way for government to pour taxpayers' dollars into the industries they like as part of the giant stimulus policy that's been going on since WWII, and secondarily to force weaker parts of the world to bend the knee to US corporate and strategic interests. It's very obviously not for defence. Who, exactly, do you think would attack you if your military were half its current size? A quarter? An eighth?
Look at 9/11 - IIRC the interceptors available in the continental USA at the time were unarmed and would have had to ram those airliners in order to stop them. This at a time when you had umpteen carrier battle groups, the basic tools of long-range force projection, all around the world breathing down the necks of nations who are never going to attack you in a million years. Does this really look like a defensive posture to you? If so, I want some of whatever you're smoking.
About TFA specifically: I agree, the US military plans for everthing, and it's daft to read too much into it. They probably have plans to invade Belgium. That said, the weaponization of space is a serious concern, and even the perception of capability in this area is risky. Space-based assets are extremely valuable and extremely vulnerable to first strikes; this creates a strong "use it or lose it" pressure which could easily tip a tense standoff into a conflict.
How can a nuke do thermal and sonic damage from orbit?? Just thought I would ask....
I love this...this guys parent gets modded a troll and his reply gets modded insightful....guess it was not much of a troll eh?
As Dr Strangelove said "Yes, but the... whole point of the doomsday machine... is lost... if you keep it a secret! Why didn't you tell the world, eh? DeSadeski: It was to be announced at the Party Congress on Monday. As you know, the Premier loves surprises. " Is the threat of it that simple ? And as Eric Cartmen said recenty "..a truely great country can go to war.. but act like it dosent want to..... its called having your cake, and eating it too.."
So? That's spread over 50 years; is about the scale of the First World War; and doesn't have anything to do with my point.
I was wondering about the possibility of using a large, soft object such as a balloon or a mass of aerogel to sweep up junk gently rather than causing it to fragment and make more junk. Eventually the mass could be deorbited and fall into the ocean.
"I get the impression you are saying that the US and Russia have nukes so that keeps their citizens in line and pacified with fear? Doesn't seem to work that well since the past few decades have seen considerable political turnover in the US and Russia."
The tunrover has been amongst the candidates chosen by the major parties. Hardly what I'd call "considerable".
evil is as evil does
Some countries have no reason to fear us. China, Russia, Isreal, North Korea, these countries all have nukes, they have space travel, they can most likely bomb us from space just as easily as we can bomb them. The whole space wars idea is dumb. When I drive my car do I attach a gun to the front of my car to avoid traffic? Hell no, instead theres rules of the road which everyone follows to prevent accidents. Why not have rules of space?
"arial"?
Good Christ the Times New Romans are invading! Send the Courier! Arm the trebuchet! Get us some arial imagery NOW! Get rid of the Comic Sans -- we don't need his distraction in the war room!
Arial? And you have the nerve to critique the "utter stupidity" of people on this site?
Yes thanks for transcribing the republican talking points.
Let's see how far you are under a rock.
Why did saddam need to be removed? Why did he need to be removed before any other two bit dictator? Why wasn't a no fly zone, constant bombing by the US, and a huge team of inspectors not enough to control him? Now that he is gone why are we still there? Why are we building over 10 military bases?
Is the world a safer place today then it was before we invaded. Are there more terrorists today then before the invasion?
Was the freedom if Iraiqs (people you didn't give a shit about before the invasion) really worth 200 billion and deaths of tens of thousands of people.
evil is as evil does
Osama and his buddies(the mujahadeen) were funded, equiped and trained by the CIA to kill the soviets in the afgan war V1.0 (1980-1990)
But the more he tighten his grip, the more systems will slip through his fingers...
Its like being shocked that the US had plans for nuclear war with the soviet union.
-
As long as large countries are rivals for turf on the world stage, it is inevitable. The purpose of any arms race should be to preserve the existing balance of power and deter either side from fighting. Attitudes in the quieter parts of the world help to keep things from spiraling out of control (unlike in previous centuries), but we know that ignorance is not bliss. A sign of weakness is an invitation for a future conflict.
As the U.S. goes, it is way ahead in the space race. Space theatre capabilities should be kept under wraps as much as possible. Only the Chinese stand to benefit from their very public efforts to "catch up".
... back in the halycon days of (August) 2001, one of my fellow teachers asked, "But why are we trying to militarize space?" And the extremely friendly and capable major answered thusly: Space is valuable real estate. Near-Earth operations support a multi-billion dollar industry whose importance and value to the free industrialized world is increasing exponentially. Of that value, a vastly disproportionate amount is American. It will become a target. It will eventually become too tempting to be ignored, and then somebody is going to militarize space, whether or not we do.
Or, actually, he put it more succintly: "The United States is not going to deploy the first offensive weapons in space. But once somebody does, the very next day we damn sure are going to deploy the second one -- and it'll be superior."
I think the US Air Force, and the military in general, would prefer to see space remain non-militarized for as long as it possibly can -- but they're not dumb enough to think that "as long as possible" is the same as "forever".
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
I d/n RTFA but the headline made me think of James Bond - Moonraker.
The beautiful people vs. the scrubs in an old style UT low-grav Instagib team DM.
Yeehaw!
...attack the messenger. Stupid is as stupid does.
Arial? And you have the nerve to critique the "utter stupidity" of people on this site?
Absolutely! I reserve the right to critique the utter stupidity of people on this site and to point out that pedantic whining over spelling errors suggests to me that you belong amongst the legions of those who complain heartily about petty, meaningless things because they can't argue against the message. Thus, you attack the messenger because you recognize the truthfulness of the message, yet your mind, trapped in lockstep with others who refuse to accept reality, cannot accept its truthfulness. It's a common problem amongst the utterly stupid that I referred to in my original message.
For example, the Mafia used to be very influential in federal politics prior to the 70's, they since have lost a lot of their influence. I consider this the single greatest shift in US politics since the end of the Second World War with immigration being a close second. Also, the CIA got hit hard by scandals of the 60's and 70's and changed significantly their operations. More recently, the neo-cons have considerable control over the Republican Party.
I knew it! It was Dr.Claw behind the Cold War from the start!
--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
America has superiority and Bush didn't have to achieve it.
You know, the government has plans to cover scads of things, whether they're realistic or not. The same people who rant and rave over plans to shoot down satellites "if the need arises" are the same people who would scream bloody murder if there was no plan in place and the need arose.
Just because a plan exists doesn't indicate that it will be executed. You all do know that the US has plans that cover potential attacks from the US on its allies, if the need arises, right? It'll probably never happen, but better to be prepared...
Of course, I suppose that we could just run those plans by the "global community" and have them check things over and give us permission to have such plans - in fact, I think that will be one of the cornerstones of Senator Kerry's administration, should he be elected. And good thing, too, because we wouldn't want the government making national security decisions without the checks and balances provided by other nations!
As a Canadian.. I was watching a documentary on an air accident many years ago. The commercial jet, had its cargo door blown off in mid flight. As the show had explained, there was some mechanical problems that Boeing knew about, and had warned tha airlines to fix them. It took 8 hours to fix, and it was deemed ok to do them as they went. The mechananism was a turning lock, and some aluminum blocks came down to keep it all in place. Turns out that the aluminum wasnt strong enough, if the locking mechanism turned by itself. The other part is that the big handle on the outside was supposed to have disconeccted the motor that unlocked the door. Turns out that it didnt work. They locked the hatch and hit the button, and the door popped open. They figgured that it was a short that caused the door to open. Deppresurising the cabin. Now, whats to keep me from beleiving that someone dosent blow the weapons door, or knock the alignment out? I mean wasn't one of Americas best and brightest that sent that probe to Mars, with some bad conversions from metric to standeard ? So what happens if that thing goes out of whack and decideds to bow up a commercial airliner instead ? Must have been those wacky terrorists..
Come on people. Get a grip. The US military plans for many, many contingencies. This is but one among many. According to the Federation of American Scientists, the US first had an antisatellite weapon in 1964: http://www.fas.org/spp/military/program/smc_hist/S MCHOV13.HTM.
The more well known ASAT missile was tested in 1985, almost 20 years ago.
Of all the world's militaries, the US is the most dependent upon space-based assets. Therefore the US forces are most at risk if space assets are attacked, simply because we have more of them and depend more upon them than others do. Is it any surprise that we have a plan to defend ours and attack theirs? Wouldn't it be irresponsible of our military if they did not have such a plan?
Good point. If the USA hadn't funded Saddam in the first place, they wouldn't be in the mess they're in. It's tempting to say that Bush is cleaning up his daddy's mess, but it looks like he's just making the mess bigger, really.
What a stupid idea. The UN is useless as a force for good in any capacity other than as a distributer of aid.
That they're talking about the fact that they're talking about it, can be a powerful tool diplomatically.
Every couple of years they saudis openly flirt with the idea of getting nuclear weapons. They aren't really seriously intending to, but by talking about it you gain leverage over anyone who thinks you can't or won't do it.
Indeed the 9/11 report makes good reading. It clearly states that there have been no operational ties between Al Qaida and Iraq.
Now the president of Iraq (put there by the US) even complains about the blood shed that the American military inflicts on Iraq.
It is foolish to believe that the additional hate that this war is generating towards the US is making America any safer.
Perhapse I should have been more concise for those looking for an excuse to argue just to argue. Remove the words "in one campaign and" from the statement you quoted and you'll get the general idea. That, and you're a freakin retard to actually compare nuclear testing with using a weapon in anger against real people. Come the fuck on now. Only a fool is going to put them in the same context.
You need a FREE iPod Nano
Great, let me make sure I have all of your points correct:
1) It's OK to drastically alter the US Constitution and take away citizen's rights as long as it "pacifies some people"?
2) Al Qeida, which is now in about 10 times the countries and has dozens more cells, is "on the run"?
3) Afghanistan is free from Taliban rule? (You may want to ask the average Afghan about that.)
4) Being President is too hard for Bush, so he needs to spend nearly every other hour on vacation? (And you're OK with that? And are naive enough to think that all presidents do it.)
5) Saddam "deserved to be taken out". (So we should invade the 20 or 30 other countries whose leaders deserve to be taken out?)
6) Bush has made us safer and less of a target? (So we have more allies and less enemies than we did 4 years ago?)
Wow, this planet you live on sounds like a great place to live. I'll have to come visit sometime.
What was it called again? Planet AcidTrip?
Lose Weight and Feel Great with Isagenix
But shooting down the commercial spacecraft is ok? By that logic, it would be perfectly reasonable to shoot down airliners, because they MIGHT be dangerous.
1. there are only a dozen or so countries that have any space capability of their own. When you get past a few European nations and China, everyone else puts up their sattelites with the aid of the US or one of those two, so of course in many cases, we know whether the widgets have cameras and such on board - we helped launch them. One of the reasons we like the European Space Agancy is they are very far from covert about launch verification. If the ESA is putting up a bird for some African nation, for example, and the US wants to inspect it or supervise loading, we just ask.
2. Even for a lot of the ones we didn't launch, we know pretty much what's on board. That's part of the CIA's share of your tax dollars at work.
3. Spysats have to either drop film to be recovered the old fashioned way, or send encripted data to a ground reciever. The Soviet Union in the early 60's was the only country that we are sure managed to hide encripted photo traffic among regular communications packets for even a few weeks without it being detected (and it looked mighty suspicious that the bird was passing over the US several times a day instead of sitting in a geo-syncronous orbit over Russia, even before wwe could technically prove it.). A useful spysat can be detected simply by its having an orbital profile that keeps putting it over things the owner would want to take pictures of.
So I doubt there are hundreds, or even dozens, of sattelites with any unknown features in near space. There are probably a few out in geosyncronous orbit that were supposedly for civilian TV traffic only and can actually relay military information, because that's an easier trick to pull off. This technology apparently isn't aimed at the stuff in high orbits though.
Who is John Cabal?
The US has been working on this stuff for a long time, well before Bush. You can stop bashing Bush for this, you can blame Reagan and Clinton.
- from someone in the biz.
Go go gadget web browser!
Like what I said? You might like my music
There is however a flaw. If I have a system that can knock down 10 missiles that is an incentive for my enemy to produce 11 + missiles. So if we get ourselves into another cold war these systems could result in the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
Also, the development will turn towards weapon systems that are not subject to that defense system, i.e. backpack nukes.
Question: What is the biggest fear about terrorists?
Answer: That they will get a backpack nuke and smuggle it into one of our cities.
So following that course of "defense" will only make us more vulnerable to the REAL threat in the future. Therefore, that "defense" is not very defensive.
"get rid of the nukes"
Provide a method that will actually work and the world will hold you a hero forever. Don't and you're just another whiner that the world is a tough place.
I can't believe how much safer I feel with all those pesky non weaponization of space treaties clogging up the air. They never did anything useful anything anyway, and now we can have glorious wars in space! Yipee!
(I'm sorry, why do people want to put that psychopath back in office? Was the cold war just a failure to achieve full scale war?)
It's been a long time.
"We have hundreds of nuclear missiles in the ground all across the west, but we don't use them. That doesn't mean we should get a rid of them."
Actually, it does. What purpose do they serve? Noone on the planet can take out our submarine-based missiles, and these alone are powerful and numerous enough to destroy the planet.
I can understand having a nuclear deterrent, but we have land-based ICBMs, nukes we can deliver via bombers, cruise-missile nukes, and SLBMs. Surely it is feasible to eliminate the fixed-silo ICBMs, given that the adversary against whom they were deployed no longer exists and we have multiple, independent means of delivering enough OTHER nukes to destroy the world, should the French get uppity enough to make warrant such an object lesson.
NOt to mention that having a plan to invade our allies also gives us something to work from in the case of our allies being conquered and we have to liberate them.
These plans don't get used in their existing form, they're used to determine where our weaknesses may lie, what problems we need to solve to make our strengths stronger, and as educational work to make our strategic/tactical planning better. When/if it becomes time to wage war on space, customized plans for the situation will be drawn up and executed, not off-the-shelf plans.
In the meantime, we'll develop weapons based on these hypothetical plans that are designed to determine our weaknesses and deal with them.
Now, as an exercies for the student, what information would you use to draw up a hypothetical plan to expose our weaknesses so that we can strengthen them? Would you create a fictional world whose relevance to the real world would be arguable but would definitely avoid offending people? Would you use outdated information (such as planning for Nazi nuclear strikes so the EU wouldn't think we were planning to defend against strikes they launched)? Or would you use current state of the known world?
Like what I said? You might like my music
Ummm. Considering oil for food and other scandals, not even that.
We'd start giving more of a shit if the other countries didn't let everything go to hell, then call us for help.
Was that when Bush Sr was head of the CIA?
The dude that spouted all the republican party-line crap seems to have ignored the fact that Osama has a cause because of western imperialism in the region, and Osama got his startup as a terrorist organization paid in $USD.
The Bush family has a loooooong history in both the Middle East and American politics. Why we would ever elect another one of them to office is quite beyond me, but it keeps right on happening.
I liken GW Bush as the President to what would happen if Inspecter Jacques Clousseau were President. In fact, it's really too bad Peter Sellers is dead, because when it's time to make a movie about GW Bush, they need to cast Peter Sellers. Although I bet Eric Idles could do it. And with John Travolta as Osama Bin Laden, I suppose that would make it a movie that would have big name stars and still fail.
Like what I said? You might like my music
1) Happens all the time. The PC'rs are doing a fine job curtailing freedom of speech.
2) Al Qeida was in those countries long before we started striking back at them.
3) Yep, elections coming up. Read?
4) Simply a lie.
5) That is perhaps the end result of civilized people getting tired of allowing despots to control countries, yes.
6) That's probably a push.
Biologicals are one of the few reasons it might make sense to use Nukes. A high end biological weapon (say an open air vectorable Ebola Zaire strain), can theoretically be a literal billion killer. If used, we stop counting Megadeaths and start figuring in Gigadeaths instead.
Worse, if it is used on the US, the vast majority of deaths happen to the citizens of various tropical nations, who are all innocent bystanders, likely not even involved in the war until then. We, and much of Europe, would probably manage a mortality rate of less than 30%, thanks to modern medicine and cool climates, but much of the world wouldn't.
A modest, sane, and rational response to such a weapon if it was known to still be confined to a lab in some area would be the simultanious detonation of two nuclear devices, one fused for ground and the other airbursting at about 5,000 meters, both with the dial-a-yield cranked all the way up. Sadly, to have even a chance of success at staving off Armagheddon, no warning or ultimatum could be given, let alone a two week grace period.
Unfortunately, the only time we have suspected anyone was possibly running such a Bio-weapons program, the suspected lab was within 3 miles of a major city. Despite that, killing a million to save a billion, or more, argueably isn't crazy. But we had damned well better be right, and our record on finding WMD labs isn't looking too good right now.
Who is John Cabal?
Had they known what those fundamentalists were going to do with those airliners, do you think for a moment that the U.S. wouldn't have shot them down? And, yes, it would have been a good thing to do so, even with our own people on board.
It's generally the *intense* radiation released from the blast that causes the initial thermal damage so the answer to the thermal part is "quite easily". As far as sonic bursts without a medium (atmosphere) to travel through, there would be none or very little if the blast displaced some (at this point thin) atmosphere towards the satellite.
It would be the EMP that takes it out at a distance beyond the nukes destructive blast radius.
Yeah, the damn Brits repulsed our attacks.
So, this includes you too then, huh?
So the response of the passengers can be assumed to have changed.
Why do you believe the approach of the hijackers will not also change to compensate for the change in the passengers' response?
Yes, if everyone was armed, fewer terrorists would be able to take over planes. On the other hand, it would tend to cull the idiots in our own population.
Since we are not going to arm all of our passengers, the terrorists' new object will be to immediately kill anyone who might be a threat to them once they take over the plane. This makes it harder for them, but not impossible. Particularly given the failures of our airport screening system.
They've worked on it before...
Encyclopedia Astronautica has some good info on both the US and Soviet military space programs.
The soviets even had a military space station with a modified AA canon that was tested for its effectiveness in destroying satelites.
When it was being built, the space shuttle played a signifigant role in US military planning, but as it became more cost effective to launch satelites with conventional rockets, the military dropped the shuttle as a launch platform...
"Sometimes he's told while reading to some kids that 2 airliners crashed into the world trade center."
It didn't faze him though. He just kept reading that book.
Tim
Omnia vestra castrorum habetur nobis.
> This is just my perception, but it seems we spend hundreds of billions for solving a problem that could have been avoided with a few billion dollars and a little diplomacy.
To be fair, Saddam Hussein got billions of dollars and a lot of diplomacy.
Ditto for the North Koreans, actually.
> it seems that we could just have let the Iraqis overthrow Saddam when they tried dozens of times.
So you admit that the Iraqis tried to revolt against Saddam multiple times, and you still thought they might succeed within a feasible timeframe? These people were slaughtered and clamped down on.
> A lot of times, all it would have required was for the CIA to just not tip him off.
And where did you hear this? I find it unlikely that the CIA would really be more effective than Saddam's own intelligence services anyway.
> there were several opportunities to remove the embargo and help the Iraqis to revolt
How would lifting the sanctions help Iraqis revolt? Saddam himself was bribing and trying to get them lifted.
[PowerPoint] is a tool for capitalist presentation
All these years after the Cold war, the US continues to develop an offensive bioweapons capability, which is why they refuse to sign a Bioweapons Convention.
3 wh eelis.html
http://www.thebulletin.org/issues/2003/jf03/jf0
Space weapons, bioweapons, landmines, take your pick: the USA is the real "rogue state".
You do realize that the Jewish people in Israel are not the only Jewish people on the planet, right? I know that the Palestinians aren't aware of this either, but why act as if every Jew on the planet has blood on their hands because of the Middle East?
Because its easier and everyone else does it. Seriously.
Any educated person who watchs the news beyond Fox or CNN can tell you the U.S. and its citizens has its made despite the current economic problems and terrorist fears. But instead you get masses of Americans bitching about Bush for X reason every other week just because the media points it out to them.
I wish they would spend just 10% of the time and money that spend on making a better war machine into making sure that they don't have to use it.
-------
That's what they are doing.
After every major US war until WWII, we largely disarmed after the cessation of hostilities, only to need to scramble to rebuild when the next major war rolled around. This cost us dearly in 1812, and greatly slowed us in WWI and WWII (although we were in better position for WWII). Our massive industrial base and geographic isolation let us get away with this. But in the atomic/jet age, this wasn't as much of a benefit. We might not have any industry left by the time we realized we'd need it again.
So we didn't disarm. We pushed for a massive advantage and try to make sure everyone else disarmed this time. It has largely worked.
The War of 1812, a draw...
In a nutshell, the US declared war. They _invaded_ Canada and had their ass handed to them in a serious of land engagements (but they defeat the invincible British Navy in numerous skirmishes). In the obscure "Battle of Bladensburg", British forces burn down the White House, for which it didn't get it's name. It ended in stalemate and a treaty was signed which effectively legitimized American Independence.
Yep that's a solid win according to Webster (of the dictionary/companion to american history fame). Interesting how history is re-written by the "victor", or is it guy with the largest mouth.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
Actually the world made the difference between the German and the Nazy, and most people who fought in WW2 are dead by now.
And what of the rebellion? If the Rebels have obtained a complete technical readout of this station, it is possible, however unlikely, that they might find a weakness, and exploit it.
"The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
Well, close. The job of the military is to break the correct shit and kill the right people. Sometimes their responsibility extends to ensuring that some shit stays intact, and that certain people remain alive.
Anyhoo, the military should be (and probably is) concerned about space debris, because they've got stuff in orbit too. Even if we assume that their entire mandate is to break shit and kill people, they will be able to do so less effectively if space junk keeps wiping out their reconnassance satellites, GPS navigation, or new space-based weapons. Putting lots of crud into space will inconvenience them in the next battle--for which they surely will be planning.
~Idarubicin
espo
Why flamebait? Speak up for yourself! Do you really think Palestinian suicide bombers or Chechnyan child-murderers helped the cause they claim to represent? You might want to read this website before commenting or moderating.
Remember, releasing this information provides at least two things:
:)
1. it's a trial balloon, to see what people om the outside think,
2. it's a way to give other (potential enemy) strategists one more thing to think about.
If someone is relying on eyes in the sky, well, it's good to point out those eyes may go blind. It's unlikely that anyone anytime soon is going to use them, but you never know. I'd be surprised if the Feds aren't looking at every query that comes through the commercial sat servcices (great intel) as well as the origin/destination of every telstar call.
With SIP, it becomes even easier, because all that stuff is in text
It's amusing that the growth in commerical satellites have probably stopped (or will stop) competition in the intel satellite business. Why build your own if you can rent one?
getting the sound of a near miss of a laser to travel through space.
"When two planes almost collide, they call it a near miss. IT'S A NEAR HIT! A collision is a near miss. POOOF, look, they nearly missed. YES, BUT NOT QUITE!!!"
"Was it a millionaire who said 'Imagine No Posessions?'" -- Elvis Costello
Well Jim, he forgot Poland!
George Herbert Walker Bush (that's George H. W. Bush) has a son named George Walker Bush (George W. Bush). There are no Senior, Junior titles for people with different names!
The fact that you knew I was referring to GHW Bush indicates that whether or not I gave him a title that breaks certain naming conventions, I was successful at conveying my meaning. Understanding is the essence of language, and grammar is irrelevent so long as understanding takes place. This isn't an English paper.
Of course it is, because you are out of touch with mainstream America. Don't believe me? Look at the election results of 2000, and the current polls. Now who's the nutcase?
This looks more like a personal attack than anything else. You've offered scant evidence of *anything*. I don't know what you want me to see. That Bush won the election? The Florida fiasco? A breakdown of which states each side own? What? Current polls are trending favorably to Kerry, last I checked (admittedly it was yesterday. Mainstream America is fickle).
And of course in the process of doing these things, you've failed to actually respond to my post. Surprise surprise.
Like what I said? You might like my music
Oh right, seeing as how the U.S. is the only country to actually USE nuclear bombs on another country.
"the damn Brits repulsed our attacks"
...
...
Every time you go against brits you win , every time you go against Canadian you loose
You attacked Canada it whas Canadian who defeated and crushed you and burned your capital to the ground , be happy whe where just a colony
its not the case anymore
..."There's a sucker born every minute."
And it sure seems like over the past 60 years the suckers have been left-wing liberals who worked so hard to dismantle the military in the name of saving money for pie in the sky social programs, only to discover that when we needed to actually fight, there wasn't a fit military to do the work, thus dumping a mess in the right-wing conservatives' laps when the liberals lost the elections.
I was in the Navy for ten years - I saw build up and dismantlement and scrambling to do a job with half-assed gear and low staffing.
Diplomacy only works when the bad guys know that there is a Louisville Slugger waiting behind the nice words. And if the diplomacy fails, then we'd better be ready to start swinging.
indeed
The US military is there for defense?! What are you smoking? Which country is a military threat to the USA?
And don't give me any crap about "terrorists". The US military is pretty useless against terrorists. Its only practical use is attacking sovereign nations. Which looks great on CNN and boosts the current president's approval rating, but which feeds the resistance movements. Uh, sorry, "terrorists".
Yep. It really doesn't matter if the shit you break in orbit is vaporised by laser or busted up by missiles, you still leave debris behind. Whether it's jagged lumps of stuff, or spherical condensed droplets, the debris cloud would be expanding until it impacts some other stuff in orbit. What's the relative proportion of stuff in orbit?? High percentage of US satellites of one kind or another, I think...
Nice.
None of the other "think about your breathing" posts ever worked on me. Maybe because I was already breathing heavy when reading about the female slaves being my inalienable right.
You make alot of sense, cause I dont want to suffocate.
Before 9/11, his administration took its eye off of the terrorist threat. Unlike Clinton, who had daily briefings on the terrorist threat, Bush didn't have one until September. On 9/10, John Ashcroft wanted to reduce funding for terrorism investigation.
Like John Kerry said in the debate, we left much of the Afghanistan operation up to the warlords, who let many of Al Queda slip away, either through incompetence or through bribery.
Even today, the Taliban are returning to Afghanistan and much of the country is no better than it was before the invasion, if you don't count the capital Kabul.
Saddam Hussein was a bad man, but was not at all behind 9/11. By the time we invaded Iraq, the weapons inspectors were back and searching the country, in part due to the threat of force from President Bush. Saddam would not be able to manufacture anything while the inspectors were there. Also, major portions of Iraq were effectively outside the control of Saddam, with the no-fly zones and whatnot. The Kurds were effectively governing themselves.
In fact, I would say that there were many other countries that were far more of a threat than Iraq, like North Korea, who will sell anything to the highest bidder, or Pakastan, who did sell nuclear technology right under our nose.
Saddam was not a threat to the US, nor would he likely become one with the inspectors on the ground. Even so, we should have first finished up in Afghanistan before moving on to Iraq. Besides, what country was more responsible for 9/11? What about Saudi Arabia? Most of the hijackers came from Saudi Arabia as did much of their funding. Much of the fundamentalist intolerant Islam comes out of that country. They set up madrasses to teach their religion in poor countries like Afghanistan where they teach the Koran, but not much else. They don't even teach things like that the Earth is round (many don't know this) and to hate the United States and the West. The Saudi school books teach hatred, and it continued even after 9/11.
Invading Iraq was a major mistake. For all those innocent civilians who are hurt or killed, how many people are turned to hate the US? You kill a mother, a father, a child, brother, or sister, and now you have a whole family mad at you, not to mention all their friends and neighbors.
As bad as Saddam was, he kept Iraq under control and kept it out of the hands of religious fundamentalists, including Al Queda. He was a problem, but he was Iraq's problem, not ours. None of his neighbors was particularly worried about him after '91. None of his neighbors is in the coalition of the willing (Poland does not border Iraq).
Also, I strongly urge you to look at the other reasons we invaded Iraq. A very good article can be found at http://www.harpers.org/BaghdadYearZero.html.
After 9/11 I would much rather see a lot more troops in Afghanistan weeding out Al Queda and the Taliban. I also would want to see very strong action taken against Saudi Arabia who was behind much of the funding and their peddling of hate. We had a strong opportunity to unite the world closer together after 9/11 to stamp out terrorism and Bush totally squandered it. He rejected other countries offering troops and supplies to weed out the terrorists in Afghanistan and went after Iraq instead (who Bush had wanted to invade long before 9/11).
This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
In 1814 we took a little trip
Along with Colonel Jackson down the mighty Mississip
We took a little bacon and we took a little beans
And we caught the bloody British in the town of New Orleans
We fired our guns and the British kept a'comin'
There wasn't nigh as many as there was a while ago
We fired once more and they began to runnin'
On down the Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico
We looked down the river and we seed the British come
And there must have been a hundred of 'em beatin' on the drum
They stepped so high and they made their bugles ring
We stood behind our cotton bales and didn't say a thing
We fired our guns and the British kept a'comin'
There wasn't nigh as many as there was a while ago
We fired once more and they began to runnin'
On down the Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico
Old Hickory said we could take 'em by surprise
If we didn't fire our muskets till we looked 'em in the eyes
We held our fire till we seed their faces well
Then we opened up our squirrel guns and gave 'em..
Well... we...
Fired our guns and the British kept a'comin'
There wasn't nigh as many as there was a while ago
We fired once more and they began to runnin'
On down the Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico
Yeah they ran through the briars and they ran through the brambles
And they ran through the bushes where a rabbit couldn't go
They ran so fast that the hounds couldn't catch 'em
On down the Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico
We fired our cannon till the barrel melted down
So we grabbed an alligator and we fought another round
We filled his head with cannonballs 'n' powdered his behind
And when we touched the powder off, the gator lost his mind
We fired our guns and the British kept a'comin'
There wasn't nigh as many as there was a while ago
We fired once more and they began to runnin'
On down the Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico
Yeah they ran through the briars and they ran through the brambles
And they ran through the bushes where a rabbit couldn't go
They ran so fast that the hounds couldn't catch 'em
On down the Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico
Hut, hut, three, four
Sound off, three, four
Hut, hut, three, four
Sound off, three, four
Hut, hut, three, four
How do you know what exactly he was told? When the first plane hit, I was at my research lab at the university, and my wife called to tell me. All she'd heard on the radio was "a plane hit the building." People didn't really know how big a plane it was, or why it hit. The week before 9/11, I'd been watching a documentary on skyscrapers, and they'd mentioned the time back in the 30's or so when a small plane smacked into the side of the Empire State Building. We figured it was that same event all over again. Small plane, VFR flight (I have a private pilot's license), maybe got stuck in some clouds, and made a bad move. I said, "Damn, that sucks!" hung up the phone, and got back to work. It was only after the 2nd plane hit that we realized it was a coordinated attack.
Tell me, what would you do, Mr. Mondy-Morning Quaterback? You're the President, on a routine PR event, reading a story to kids in an elementary school. All of a sudden, a secret service agent comes up to you and says, "A plane just crashed into one of the World Trade Center towers. We don't know if it was an accident or a deliberate attack." What do you do? Do you jump up, scream "Oh my God the sky is falling!" and rush off to bomb Arabs, or do you decide to finish the story, keep the kids calm, and wait for more information? Personally, I'd do exactly what Bush did.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
Now what comes into my mind about this is who decides what a threat is?
The president that we have given so much power too?
The congress that take two years to make a "home land security" policy?
I agree with keeping America safe, but when our safety starts to affect other countries-that is when I want to pull the emergency break and view it again. When we take our "security" to a fight in other countries that have not shown true force against us; we just look like non-thinking ruffians.
This SIG pulled due to lack of funding. (This damn war is costing too much!)
One of the advantages of the large Chinese population is that there are larger numbers of intelligent people in China, than there are in the US: the upside of the Bell Curve. Given the resources the Chinese are likely to supplant the US as the technological innovator, in the same time frame.
If we start shooting down China et al's space technology, the next target will be painted on our foreheads, and every other soveriegn country on earth will have their fingers on the trigger.
Did you read the article? It's China that is preparing to take out US satellites, in order to prevent a reaction to an invasion of Taiwan, post 2005. The article post was pure crap. It's China that's preparing for space warfare, not the U.S. The is trying to catch up to avoid the threat. (Note: China does not have to win a space war, it merely has to blind U.S. satellites for the 48 hours needed to make an invasion of Taiwan an fait acomplit.)
every other soveriegn country on earth will have their fingers on the trigger.
Give me a fscking break. Yea, right. Every country will pull out their used WWI carbine rifle and point it at the U.S. Sheeez. We're talking about space warefare here bud. Only the U.S., Russia and now China can pay the hundreds of billions needed to play. Sheez.
World War II: 26M Soviets dead, 20M Germans...how many of those were civilians? Or do we really know? Either way, what was the total on all sides, over 50M people dead? So that would mean, if your stats are correct, that ~25M civilans died in world war two. That was what? 6 years vs. the past 60 years? All in all, that's not as bad. Still bad, but still lets add some perspective here.
"The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
"For example, the Mafia used to be very influential in federal politics prior to the 70's, they since have lost a lot of their influence."
hardly. They have gone legit and are influencing with the corporations they have formed.
As for the rest I don't consider them radical changes. It's a like a tree changing it's leaves. Republicans and democrats going through the revolving doors.
evil is as evil does
More than that, there are commercial satalites up there now with quite good imagry (1 metre resolution). The French company SPOT is an excellent example. You pay them, they task their hardware to take pictures of what you want, classified US sites included.
This is normally not something our government cares about at all. As you note, foriegn powers have long had this ability, we don't make anything obvious to satalites.
However let's say we went to war with France and they didn't surrender right away. I know, unlikely, but there are a few historical precidents for the French not surrendering right away (note to humour impared: that was a joke). So the French government decides to take over SPOT and use their satalites to track US troop movements. Well that would make them a legit target, despite it being a commercial unit.
That's what this is all about, general planning.
If anyone seriously thinks the US, or any major nation, is concerned about normal space photography, you're living in a cave.
If you think that it is more important to serve American interests than to avoid a global thermonuclear war, then the world is really doomed, and WWIII is not far enough. Can't you understand that from the moment two superpowers like USA and China go to war, everyone will be affected? the battlefield for this war will be the whole Earth, with untold consequences for life on Earth...
Nuclear Weapons are the ultimate diplomatic solution. Why? Because if used everyone looses. The only way to win a nuclear war is not to have one and therefore the primary recourse is to use diplomacy. Perfect example is North Korea and why Iran is trying like mad to develop nuclear weapons: there is no military solution. Only way to win is not to play. Why I think those wanting to ban and dismantle nukes either never understood risk or Axis and Allies nor grasp the history of international relations. That's not to say that we need 20k nuclear warheads. Macnamara's miminum deterance factor works really well (enough nukes to blow up the world once is plenty).
The big problem being the more weapons there are, the higher the chance some group (such as Bin Ladan) will use such weapons. But enough about Nukes.
Simple Fact: someone (nation or group) are going to develop such weapons and probably deploy them. China has proposed developing such systems to destroy US and other sats as well. Nothing new here. Sounds like a lot of money, but stuff to do this already exists on shelves probably. There are a lot of basic research done by DARPA/CIA/NSA/DOD including proof of concepts work that often have practical civilan applications. A lot of the work on Medical lasers are a result of DARPA funded programs originally designed to create blinding weapons. I've seen a lot of stuff funded (included OpenBSD at one point) with DOD money that otherwise would have gone unexplored for years.
Spending this money is spending it on diplomacy. If given the choice between developing weapons that forces people to the table and taking your chances in modern, mass-production war-fare...well just look at WWI and WWII for case studies on how well that ends...
"The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
Really? So, the ability to destroy all life on the planet didn't make you unconfortable?
Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
I would have thought the "obvious" consequences would be, an arms race in space and yet more tension between the US and the rest of the world, not space junk.
Wouldn't taking out someone else's shuttle/RLV be equivalent to taking out a capitol ship? How would the US react to loosing an aircraft carrier? Those are the REAL consequences!
I doubt there is any rational national security interest behind such plans. This is more likely just another way to effectively give massive cash handouts to the US armaments industry - one of the few remaining parts of the US industrial base that has survived years of economic ineptitude, greed, and corruption.
True, the USSR developed operational anti-satellite weapons (both launched from athmosphetic aircraft, and had (has?) operational anti-satellite satellites), and could easily have set out to dominate space, but to actually use such weapons in a non-wartime scenario would have been foolhardy, and despite any other criticisms that anyone may make of the Soviet Union, they never had any wish to go to war, particularly after the dreadful losses they incurred during WW2.
America is perhaps different (at least with the present junta), and American foreign policy has always been disturbingly agressive and biased against those who do not serve purely American interests. From the Genocide in Indochina, to the support for a Zionist apartheid regime in the middle east, the US has consistently shamed itself.
The US is doomed. It has an unsustainable national debt (now standing at [very conservatively] over $120,000 per american) The US empire, like those before it, will collapse. The collapse of the US economy will inevitably lead to demilitarisation and political reform within the regime. This can't be good for any of us, as it will surely have implications for the world economy in general, but at least it will help the free many countries from the tyranny of US military interventionalism and proxy occupation.
There is little military thread from other nation in a global economy. Countries depend on each other for economic success. There is no longer any need for a massive military base, and to annex countries in the name of American economic interests is obviously going to breed resentment, and spawn 'terrorists'. Look at it this way, America didn't have any enemies in the middle east until they got involved with the Zionist occupation of Palestine, and trying to secure oil supplies in the Middle East. The Taliban didn't exist until the Americans created them to oppose the Soviets. Saddam couldn't have come to power without US backing. Saddam couldn't have killed lots of Kurds without US weapons. The Zionist Terrorist Regime of 'Israel' couldn't have acquired nuclear weapons, and set out to ethnically cleanse Palestine without US help. You reap what you sow, and the Americans don't seem to have learned from history the fallacy of their actions.
US tries to control other nations for their own interest. The opposite is also true other nations must be able to control the US for the good of their own citizens. THERE IS NO WARRANTEE that that the US Government is always responsible and does the right thing.
The world SHOULD NOT BE CONTROLLED BY ONLY ONE NATION. It was better during the cold war, the RUSSIANS were evil but at least there was a balance of power. Back then US soldiers would not dare go around the world shooting people as they pleased (They used to do it only in their zone of influence, South America, etc but not in other places)
Why Saddam before others? Boils down to this: Saddam was a bastard. Sancations have proven they really don't solve the problem, just make worse problems for the population. Someone needed to go down in the Middle East and Iraq pumped the least oil, had no military left, and Saddam was a dick. While people may not like, like you, what we've done, you honestly can't tell me that your not glad to see the bastard on trial and his two sons dead can you?
Sanctions, no fly zone, et al. were all designed to force him out of power. It didn't work. Long term containment won;t work either because eventually people give in. Sure, Saddam might have died some day, but what of his Sons? I believe Germany had some strict sanctions on their military after World War I. 15 years later, Hitler said, "The hell with you, I'm building guns" and the rest of the world basically said, "You shouldn't do that" and did nothing to stop it. Saddam had all the quipement needed to go back an start manufacturing Biochem weapons within months of the lifting of sanctions. Frankly what has me scared is that we didn't find BioChem weapons other than a few shells here and there. You actually believe he destroyed them all? Might have a huge stockpile, but I am willing to bet there was still enough to pose a threat to neighbors or his own people. Could we have kept the pressure? Sure I guess so, but eventually a Iraqi leader like one of Saddam's Sons would have come to power, maybe even Saddam himslef, told the UN and world to screw off and gone back to producing weapons. Iraqi people became poor, but Saddam sure didn't loose any palaces over it...at least not until the spring of 2003.
Why are we still there? Because you can't rebuild a country over night. Hell we're still in Japan and Germany for crying out loud and that's been for over 50 years. It took almost 10 years to rebuild, educate, and hand over full control of Germany and Japan to the peoples of those country. The idea is to try and create a democracy in Iraq. That is going to take at least a decade and other decade past that to judge if it was sucessful.
Ever been to southern Germany? Seems like there is some US Military base about every 50 kilometers or so. Still! Many military bases are at least 50 years old. Sometimes you have to build new bases because its cheaper to maintain. Sometimes you have to build new bases because there are none.
Is the world safer? Answer: World's never been a safe place. 3000 miles of ocean made it seem saferso. I got a better question: is your perception of the world safer? World has always been this dangerous. Terrorism isn't new to Spain, UK, Germany, or France. They've delt with the IRA, ETA, Algerian seperates, Baader-Meinhof (Red Army?) gang, etc in the last 30 years. I think the threat has always existed, but not until the last 25 years that the world had become small enough that 3000 miles of ocean no longer provided an effective barrier. The United States has gone from being blind and ignorant that the world isn't a safe place and become aware of that fact. World hasn't changed, United States has changed.
How many terrorist are there? Lots and it depends who you ask. ETA is a terrorist, yet the MTFA(SP?) in Peru are not listed as terrorist. They seem like terrorist as well. All I can say for sure is that there are more terrorist in body bags and graves today than 3 years ago.
Was freedom for Iraqis worth 200Billion and thousands of people dead? TBD: see me again in 2020 and I can tell you for sure. However, was America's free
"The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
It spread to the USSR.
Europe has a tradition of war that had left us more relaxed about it.
Why the first thing? Because ICBMs gave the capacty for nation-states to strike at home.
Why now? 11/9 (as we would say here)
I still think this is a step down from the days when they had a hold on J. Edgar Hoover and control of the biggest labor unions.
As for the rest I don't consider them radical changes.
The huge jump in immigration and the neo-con takeover of the conservative movement are radical changes.
Osama and his followers hate us because they just hate us.
I always get a laugh when yet another idiot in yet another gun-control argument spouts about freedom and being able to resist the government when it starts sending troops into the streets. Why would they want to do that? There is absolutely no need to control the US people with troops. USians are so very well brainwashed, Goebbels would be proud!
9/11 happened because the US for decades preached democracy, justice and fairness to Arab countries and the world, then going on to support Israel with its racist policies. Isreal does not want peace with the Palistinians, they want their land. That's what the US is hated for and your policy makers know it, but it is not politically correct to say so aloud. So what to do in the Land of the Free and Home of the Brave? Not to worry, just let some TV talking heads declare some total utter bullshit about 'they hate our freedom' and all is well. And you let them get away with it...
read the 9/11 report. It's very enlightening.
Yeah sure.
The USSR was willing to say they'd never use a nuclear weapon first if the US would say so, and the US would not agree to that. The reason is that the USSR had a massive advantage in ground troops: if there were ever a ground invasion of western europe, NATO would need to use nuclear weapons to stand a chance.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
So, what you're saying is they can't spell?
Bush is the best recruiting sargent Al Qaeda ever had..
...The Jews have brought that one down on themselves.
Why do you keep calling them the Jews? They are Israelis.
The quickest way to become an atheist is to study the Bible thoroughly.
Why don't you say what you really feel no need to hide it in flowery language you will feel better if you go on and ventget it out of your system get a nice cup of tea and a Prozac you will feel a lot bettr
Diplomacy is the art of saying "Nice doggie" until you can find a rock. Will Rogers
At that point, it is no longer a commercial airliner, but just a hostile aircraft. A target.
Another question is: is it a good idea to shoot down a giant plane over a crowded city?
Everybody is doing it, so why would it be stupid? One word: sheep. If the USA goes to war with Russia or China, there are bigger things to worry about than freakin satalites. Actually, there might be very little to worry about.
You're absolutely right. But a large part of the blame for it lies with the Israelis/certain jewish organisations. Every time someone makes a complaint against israel, they get accused of being anti jewish or anti semitic. Several jewish organisations outside Israel use exactly the same tactic. As soon as someone believes and acts according to those Israeli/jewish organisations' preferences, and simply substitutes jewish for isrealis, somebody else, you in this case, tells us we shouldn't use both terms in such a loose fashion. The same thing is done, as you probably know, with Jewish/israelis as a religion/culture/people. The rather nice side effect is that any remark made against any jewish/israeli either religious/cultural/people viewpoint can always be easily countered and put in the baddest possible light. Of course you end up with having to call some jewish people 'self hating jews' but quite a few seem to be willing to pay that price. Like I said, you're absolutely right.
1) Sanger Amerika Bomber (~1938)
2) DynaSoar aka X20 (~1960) book about it here
3) Soviet Equivalents (~1960)
4) Numerous "black" projects here
5) Ever wondered who paid for the Space Shuttle ?
There are sure to have been many projects between 1 & 2.
Finding information on the rest of the above is left as an exercise for the reader ;-)
As long as there has been transportation sytems there have been military applications.
K
Be wary of strong drink, it can make you shoot at tax collectors and miss.
War planning? That would be something new. In all the last wars the USA had superior weapons, superior numbers and maybe even superior soldiers and ( propably most important) superior infrastructure.
Superior planning on the other hand does not seem to be included. Most plans of war seem to be outdated exactly at the point the war starts anyway. Wars tend to do that with plans - they are the first targets being hit.
This is why their proliferation is so frowned upon by the powers that already have them; because it would dilute their usefulness as weapons of pure terror.
Terror isn't a zero-sum game with a finite supply that is diluted by more participants.
More nuclear proliferation means more living in more fear.
The existing nuclear powers fear proliferation for the same reason everyone else does - there are more independent, uncontrolled sources of potential nuclear damage. It's a risk that increases with the number of players, pure and simple, just like running across the freeway at 3:30am or at 7:30am.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
Hey, you forgot to include the current prime-minister of the Netherlands, Peter Jan Balkenende. This guy is head of a party that simply exists to kiss other parties asses. Like the parties they rule the Netherlands with, or the NATO, where the biggest kiss-ass (Jaap de Hoop-Scheffer) has been elected NATO Secretary General, mostly by the USA. He's perfect for the job, creativity==0 and he's more loyal to his big masters than Smithers is to Burns.
Ask our prime minister the reason to go to war with Irak and he will answer "to remove a dictator" without blushing because he's probably the only head of state to actually *believe* that lie.
Because many of these satellites use nuclear fuled power cells, and shooting them apart could cause bits of radioactive plutonium to rain down all over the planet for decades. Evil and stupid enough for you?
and I realise this is likely to get this post instantly modded as a troll, but it isn't.
my question is this.
Is the primary directive of USA foreign policy one of alienating everyone else on the planet to the point where we are all either actively participating or standing by and cheering on anyone and everyone who is bent upon the utter destruction of the USA?
If this isn't the primary directive, I'd like to know what is, and why it is being so well suppressed.
For those of you USAians who think you're invulnerable to the rest of the planet, go study 5000 years of human history.
http://slashdot.org/~GuyFawkes/journal
Use the Asymmetric Force, Ivan!
Luke Skywalker has shown that killing a Death Star is much cheaper than it's building. And we Russians have a lot of rusty 5-angled asymmetric nuts to be sent suborbitally against any Death Star we dislike. Suborbitally because the Russian ensigns (praporshchiks) have drunk half of rocket fuel from 3-rd stages.
These are nothing but contingency plans. The pentagon is full of them. There are large groups of people whose job it is to dream this stuff up and plan appropriate responses. Just in case.
When Saddam invaded Kuwait, US Central Command just dug out the Iraq-Invades-A-Smaller-Neighbor plan and tweaked it to fit the exact situation. (Read Gen. Schwartzkopf's autobiography for the details).
Chip H.
I disagree that satellites aren't important in massive combat.
I'd say that they are even a tempting target for any country in a limited war with NATO, US, or similarly equipped countries.
GPS (military level) guided weapons are what makes us ABLE to engage in limited conflicts. Without them we are back to unguided iron bombs, a limited set of missiles that are less accurate, and nukes.
Take out the GPS satellites and those countries (mainly US) are forced into a conflict the populace would accept less readily, and that forces us to escalate or withdraw or kill lots of civilians.
Plans to protect, replace ours, and shoot down the other guy's satellites (that might be armed or provide targeting information) are going to be an essential part of any country that relies on GPS targeting for conventional warfare.
(Russia is rumored to have had some nukes in orbit, the US could too for all we know. So it's not that far fetched that the US needs a plan for it.)
I never said that they aren't important in massive combat.
If the USA goes to war with a country that is able to launch satelites into orbit all by itself, than the chances are they will have long distance nukes.
So even if they can be helpfull in massive combat, there would be other things to worry about first. The chances of getting a nuclear missile down before it hits are still pretty small.
So what's the point of those anti satelite satelites?
Try saying this to those people.
Actually, no. That rationale for nukes is does not work anymore; there is no MAD, no country against which to have a detente.
If a nuke is used, it will be by a terrorist organisation, not a country. So a nuclear answer is impossible; one cannaot nuke a terrorist organisation. As for countries; even if China where to nuke the US, the firepower in ordinary TNT is deterant enough, and can create destruction enough, that nukes aren't neede anymore.
The use of nukes is now unjustifiably abhorent; the sterilise peices of land for too long (just look at the sky high cancer rates in Hiroshima and Nagasaki). Every dollar spent on nuclear weapons (note that I didn't say power) except for disarmament is one dollar the so-called military-industrial complex which past presidents have warned against is earning over the back of the taxpayer.
-- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
USA also thought once upon a time that Osama bin Laden can be used as a controllable weapon against Russians in Afghanistan, then against Yugos in Kosovo.
Don't even think that islam can be defanged by anything except force. Creation of the worldwide Taliban is a part of it's scripture and you can do nothing with it. And moreover, the main flaw of European democracy is that it gave Moslems all the civil rights without assimilating them to their cultural community. As a result, any European politician will do anything that pleases Osama bin Laden or lose Moslem votes.
Look at www.rodina.org.il for more info (Sorry, Russian and Hebrew only)
"Look, we have a military to defend ourselves."
Absolutely untrue. In the past century, when has the US military been used for defense? Never: it has solely been used as an offensive force.
-- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
Please be informed that Hebron pogrom was made by Arabs in 1920-s, well before Sabra, Shatila and creation of Israel. After the pogrom, Jews didn't live in Hebron until 1970-th.
Please also be informed that during 1949-1967, there were a lot of Arabs and Arab willages in Israel - and NO JEW AT ALL in Haza and Western Bank. AFAIR Jews in Saudi Arabia - 0, in Iraq - about 50, in Yemen - 0, in Afghanistan - 2.
And the last:
Search "banu kuraiza" and "hudna" in Google and ask yourself: Will you make any treaty with the people whose sacred book treates such treaty as nonnecessary to filfill?
"I would however demand compensation for the cost of a new launch and lost service and work on some kind of cooperation agreement so that I can deny service to agreed upon bad guys rather than just having my stuff shot down."
.
The US would gladly pay. In fact, whenever possible it would pay in advance.
Think, for example, about the US buying off all of IKONOS images of a country, to hide their movement from the enemy. Or, better yet but not very likely, "buying degradation" of the forthcoming Galileo positioning system
Sadly, this system's rationale is only that it will be available in case of intentional degradation of the GPS signal, so these satellites are the most likey targets of any US "intervention".
"If a boss demands loyalty, give him integrity. But if he demands integrity, give him loyalty." (John Boyd, 1927-1997)
but it's time to focus on domestic issues. It's time to stop handing out marketing and law degrees in boxes of Trix. Instead, help people earn engineering and medical degrees.
The Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines can secure the borders. That's their job; specifically, the borders are where their job starts.
Boost the Border Patrol's ability to search incoming goods, and start building schools. Start fragmenting all the black and mexican ghettos, and intersperse them across the rest of the population. If they want the BLING-BLING, then teach them how to purify the gold ore, alloy it with silver, and set it with (synthetic) diamonds and whatever else.
It's time to stop using and discarding; rather, build and maintain.
wrong war, wrong galaxy, wrong time-space continuum
shoot down all kinds of satellites and spacecraft. By all means, make space inaccessible due to large clouds of high-velocity debris. Screw the enemy but also do a good job of screwing ourselves. Our spacecraft cannot penetrate a cloud of 17,000 mph shards anymore than China can.
In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
I don't think the problem is going to be the number of missles we're able to block - we'd probably have dozens, or hundreds, of anti-ballistic missles available. The problem would be the percent. I doubt we could ever get enough to block a Russian (or Chinese) attack. That would almost never work - even with a 99% success rate (much better than we'll probably ever see), the sheer number of missles mean that dozens would get through.
But look at, say, North Korea. If we had such a system, or licensed one to China, South Korea, and Japan, even a dozen missles would have a decent chance of being stopped by a system that failed one time out of five.
Realizing that nations don't have unlimited resources is important - but that goes both ways. If you think a conflict is likely, look at the alternative. No missle shield could mean hundreds of thousands dead today, two to three times that dead over the next few years, and hundreds of billion dollars of infastructure destroyed. With an effective missle defense system, you could reduce those casualties to ten percent... or eliminate them completely, with a bit of luck.
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
Actually, the United States plans wars very well. Look at the two Iraqi Wars.
Amazing feats of tactical planning and operations. Even what the media calls a "quagmire" in Iraq right now is amazing compared to what has happened before in an area the size of Iraq. After 18 months of fighting just over a 1000 combat deaths, it's a miracle.
The execution of the war in Afghanistan has also been a feat of tactical and strategic operations. In Afghanistan, you had basicly a couple hundred men on the ground wuth airsupport defeat an army of 30-50,000.
Just because the BBC and CNN and the Arabnews says something, doesn't make it a quagmire or a failure.
Anyway, it may turn out that future satellites need to be hardened against such things more than they are now. Not too much of a problem if you can afford it....
ABSURDITY, n.: A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion.
Your empire is not ran and fought for from officer's messes, but in croporate boardrooms. It is not built by generals and gunpowder, but by MBAs and stock options. It is not wrought by soldiers and sweat, but by PHBs and tears. But it is foremost fought by infecting the minds of the bourgeoisie who then thrive to annihilate the State to cripple it and prevent it from being the protector of everyone; instead, they thrive to turn it into the protector of sole rich. Just like in the USA.
The internet gives you a voice. Say it loud. Say it proud. The Truth will win in the end. As for now, as for me, I'm voting for Kerry. The greedy rich will sow the seeds of their own destruction (helped by the nongreedy rich).
Space is big. Really, really BIG.
Just don't forget that if America ever does get into Europe, and tries to invade us, do not forget that we have both atom bombs and the means (rockets and guidance systems) to get them to you.
Even if that "rocket shield" somehow seems effective, a modern atom bomb is the size of a pc. Do you really think it would not be possible to simply slip one in range (that would be about 100 km) of the white house and set it off ?
And obviously, but most of you seem to be forgetting it in this thread, one might consider it good manners to find a reason to attack Europe FIRST.
Nobody had a hold on J edgar hoover. He most likely had both kennedies and MLK killed. If anything it was the other way around, he had the mafia working for him.
evil is as evil does
We've analyzed their attack, sir, and there is a danger. Should I have your ship standing by?
"Why did Saddam need to be removed? Saddam believed, maybe still does, in Pan-Arabism or the uniting of the Gulf Arab states into one nation."
There was really no point in reading the rest of your post after reading this piece of bullshit you pass off as fact. Even if it was true what's wrong with that? Why shouldn't the Arabs form a union like the europeans did? Is sorming of commonwealths only allowed for white people or christians?
"Why Saddam before others? Boils down to this: Saddam was a bastard"
You didn't answer the question. Why was he more of a basted then anybody else. Why him first?
"you honestly can't tell me that your not glad to see the bastard on trial and his two sons dead can you?"
Honestly I didn't give a shit about who ran iraq five years ago and I don't give a shit now.
"Why are we still there? Because you can't rebuild a country over night. "
Whoops. All of a sudden we are there to build a country? I thought we went in to remove saddam.
"Is the world safer?"
So in other words it's not safer because we removed saddam.
"All I can say for sure is that there are more terrorist in body bags and graves today than 3 years ago."
Again you didn't answer my question. Are there more terrorists today then before we invaded iraq?
"Was freedom for Iraqis worth 200Billion and thousands of people dead? "
Again you completely dodged the question. I did like your pablum about how much you appreate your freedom though. Nice.
"What are our options? "
Your choice of options only shows how little you have thought about the matter and your severe lack of imagination. Surely there are other options then doing nothing or invading and occupying a country. Maybe we need people with intelligence and creativity to solve these problems.
", I say let it be against M1A1 tanks in the streets of Iraq and not in the Streets of St. Louis or Memphis or LA"
A false dichotomy. Al quada attacks once every few years. There will be american blood shed you just don't know where and when. If you think that because american soldiers are dying in iraq that nobody will die in the US you are profoundly and collosally misuinformed.
"But one thing I've heard my friend in European politics tell me time and time again is that under the surface, Europe rather enjoys what happened in Iraq"
This is just plain whacky.
Again thanks for transcribing the Republican Talking points but you really haven't answered any of my questions.
evil is as evil does
Read the biography of J. Edgar Hoover, "Official and Confidential". Among other things, we have the amazing coincidence that Hoover was the single greatest obstacle to fighting organized crime at the federal level during his entire tenure as the head of the FBI and Mafia bosses crowing about having pictures of Hoover having homosexual sex dating back from the 20's or 30's (I don't recall when). You do the math. It sounds to me like he was owned pretty much from the start.
If you read several of the reports about 9/11, it is clear that several people knew it was an attack, including NORAD. Now why nobody bothered to inform the President is up to debate. Take this for example. It has different versions of what was said to Bush after the second plane hit. They all involve the word "attack". And yet we have him sitting there for minutes reading (or just holding the book) after that.
We even have the President tell us "I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower - the TV was obviously on. And I used to fly, myself, and I said, well, there's one terrible pilot. I said, it must have been a horrible accident. But I was whisked off there, I didn't have much time to think about it." But we already knew he makes stuff up as he goes.
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
I have just read this thread and found your post and the answers thereto particularily interesting. (Pun not intended.) Especially this part:
Still, maybe those guys could take some advice from a citizen of a country who already made that mistake?
Do you suggest that the union of the United States of America should be abandoned? Do you suggest that all, or even some states should leave the union and get an independent sovereignty? (When was the last time some of the United States wanted to leave the union? What happened then?) Only a US separatist could make a consistent and sound argument against the European Union and its "sociopathic urge to unite" but if you do support the union of United States but are opposed to a much looser European Union (let me repeat, much looser--do you really think France, Poland, United Kingdom or Germany would ever voluntarily give up their sovereignty? Do you know the history of those very nations in the last few millennia?) then you must realise that such an advice would sound a little bit hypocritical, mustn't you?
Sincerely,
Pan Tarhei Hosé, PhD.
"Homo sum et cogito ergo odi profanum vulgus et libido."
Airplanes would be less apt to be hijacked if they issued everyone on board a stun gun or a big pointy stick and locked the pilots in the cabin.
They would be less apt to be used as well and anyone who still used them would be less apt to survive. This is Score:5, Insightful?!
It's called Stay The Course.
vicious, untreated political sewage...niche entertainment for the spiritually unattractive...worshipless pap
Something on the lines of "those who seek peace must be prepared for war."
If you lived in Florida, you'd probably think Hurricane devestation is not too far from war. However does that prevent you from planning on what to do in the event of one heading for your town?
Ask any professional military person, and they will agree with you that war is hell and should be avoided. And they would agree that loosing their space assets would be unacceptable.
But sticking your head in the sand, and not preparing for one, will invite one. The world is not a nice place. People are greedy, self centered, and aggressive. They hold grudges for a long time.
the ultimate solution is friendship. there are many joint ventures between USA, Russia and China now. there will be less chance for any of those countries to shoot down "our" satellites.
yes, I read about anti-satellite weapon almost 20 years ago.
USA has more spy satellites than any other countries, USA spy airplane invades other countries most often
instead of building more weapons, hurting each other's feeling more, how about building friendship, help each other to profit and develope, so that other countries hate USA less thus there's less need for more weapon?
simple, saddam was an easy target
take him out, and you presumeably cause fear of the US in the middle east,
you also cause fear in the US
the fear is used to attempt to control both populations
america needs to flex its muscle once in a while to be taken seriously
Better yet, scattershot it- Next time pay for multiple launches, in multiple countries, of very tiny (64 cubic inch) sattelites. Let them just TRY to get them all!
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Did he say Iraq had Al Qaida ties? Did Bush say this? I didn't here it. The Iraq war itself definitely has some ties to terrorism in general, just maybe not to Al Qaida. Of that you can't deny.
Hate can be a strong word. I do not see any evidence of hate towards us that did not already exist. We still have diplomatic relations with a large percentage of the world. The only ones that hate us are our enemy and is that not normal??
Hate being generated does not make us safer, on that point you are correct..it's the use of miltary power that does an dteh fear it generates. There are no countries that I am aware of that can take us out(or very few). Sure, they'll give us a big booboo, but just obliterate us of the planet, no. No COUNTRY will attack us because they know we will retaliate...under Democrat or Republican. Quite frankly, it's not the President's job to make sure we are liked by the world. It's his job to defend the Constitution of the United States and it's citizen's as well. Those are part of his duties, but not all of them.
What do you suggest we do to take care of our Enemies? Talk at them to death? At some point, unless we get lucky, talks fail. That is why we went to war in Iraq and that war had NOTHING to do with 9/11. I have never heard anyone but confused media say this. Also, the President is right....you are either with us or against us. A LARGE part of America agrees with him.
Did he say Iraq had Al Qaida ties? Did Bush say this?
Well, Cheney has been spouting this quite frequently. I think it is safe to assume he wouldn't do so if this wasn't cleared with Bush.
Hate can be a strong word. I do not see any evidence of hate towards us that did not already exist.
Would you agree that one of the most reliable way to generate hate is to spill innocent blood? If so you should be interested to get a grip on the number of Iraqi civilians that have been killed by American soldiers in Iraq.
One of the most remarkable initiatives to get a count of the death toll has been purely private. This one covers only March 21 - July 31, 2003 and the south of Iraq. The number for this region and about three month that it covers is 2066 civilian deaths 20% percent of them younger than 18. It has been conducted by locally teams volunteers and coordinated by the Iraqi Raed most of the entries in the database are identified by name and they are all civilians as defined by the Geneva convention. For a conservative estimate of the overall death toll multiply by about 8 (assuming that the death toll in the North was about the same and that the killing rate has been slowed after the 1st phase of the war. The latter probably doesn't hold any more because of the air raids on cities that are carried out frequently now). Given that Iraq has only about 24 Mio people this means that the US forces managed to kill about 7 out of 10,000 Iraqis by now. I.e. there will be hardly any Iraqi who at least doesn't know somebody else who lost friends or relatives to US fire power.
Hate being generated does not make us safer, on that point you are correct..it's the use of miltary power that does an dteh fear it generates. There are no countries that I am aware of that can take us out(or very few).
You seem to be caught in pre 9/11 thinking. It's the terrorist stupid! Some people who lost relatives in Iraq may already be hear in the states.
I guarantee you, the first enemy nuke ever to explode in the US will not be launched, but rather smuggled into or secretly assembled in the US.
And as time goes by and technology develops it will become increasingly easy for terrorists to acquire the means to inflict mass casualty. Politics that only focuse on militarily deterring other nations completely misses the point if it at the same time it also generates scores of people who want to seek vengeance against America.
What do you suggest we do to take care of our Enemies? Talk at them to death?
The US should be much smarter in going after the Islamists: Drying up the funding for them and focusing on politics that isolates them. The Iraq war proved Bin Laden right in the eyes of large parts of the Islamic world. Winning this war is 1st of all turning the masses away from this ideology of hate. Don't forget this has been achieved before. The US won against communism without any direct military confrontation.
How does one sign up for this journal?
Global warming is neither science, nor politics. It is a religion.
Read the biography of J. Edgar Hoover, "Official and Confidential". Among other things, we have the amazing coincidence that Hoover was the single greatest obstacle to fighting organized crime at the federal level during his entire tenure as the head of the FBI and Mafia bosses crowing about having pictures of Hoover having homosexual sex dating back from the 20's or 30's (I don't recall when). You do the math. It sounds to me like he was owned pretty much from the start.
Personally, I believe that Hoover was against routing the mob becasue he only fought the battles he thought he could win, and be recongized for it. He liked to look good in the press, and he knew that taking on the mafia would be a long, drawn-out process that he probably wouldn't be around to take credit for in the end.
Heh, look at what happened in the 70's. Even John Kerry got a piece. Once the Mob lost its power in the early 70's, it got taken down a few notches very fast. Stopping the mob definitely wasn't a long drawn-out process.